The guilty part of the defendant's case is reversed.

A. 2-A. of the judgment of the court below against the defendant.

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the relevant part on the ground that it was found that the public prosecutor, the Defendant, and the person who requested the custody order for the treatment and custody of the victim and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed an indecent act on several occasions by the victim AE.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because the Defendant’s punishment is too excessive.

2. Ex officio determination

A. If a number of acts constituting the same criminal name of the same crime continues to be committed for a single and continuous period under the same criminal intent and the benefit and protection of the law from such damage is the same, all these acts shall be punished by a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8645, Nov. 11, 2010). In the event a person acquires money through deception several times against the same victim in fraud, if the criminal intent is single and the same method is the same, only a single crime of fraud is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2029, Jul. 12, 2002; 2004Do598, Jan. 28, 2005; 2004Do598, Jan. 28, 2005; 200Do3645, Feb. 25, 2005).

On the premise that the crime of paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below and the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, etc., which became final and conclusive by the preceding judgment, are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court below held that Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is applicable to the crime of paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below.