Part of the compensation order (including provisional enforcement), excluding the part of the compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year.

A. (1) The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though the victims did not have committed an attempted indecent act by force or by force, and the victims did not know whether they were juveniles.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(3) Although there are special circumstances under which disclosure or notification of personal information should not be disclosed or notified to the illegal defendant of the disclosure or notification order, it is improper for the court below to order the defendant to disclose or notify personal information.

(4) The lower court that rendered an order for compensation, even though the Defendant was not guilty, is unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the part of the Defendant’s case (1) the entry of the investigation report (the attachment of indictment by the Defendant) submitted to the lower court for ex officio judgment and the written judgment duly adopted and examined in the trial room, and the search of the case, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on December 4, 2012 by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Central District Court on December 4, 2012, and on December 12, 2012, the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Thus, since the crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the crimes of this case by the defendant are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment shall be determined by taking into account equity in cases where judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1)

Therefore, among the judgment below that did not take such measures, the part of the defendant's case cannot be maintained any more because it is illegal.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and the assertion of improper disclosure or notification order is still subject to the judgment of this court.

(2) On the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.