Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

In addition, the defendant only caused the victim's her son's son's son's son's son's, etc., which cannot be viewed as violence in indecent act by compulsion.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

According to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018), Article 56 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018) (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018) (amended by Act No. 15452, etc.), the amendment provision applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the said Act and has not been finally determined. Therefore, whether the Defendant who committed a sex offense prior to the enforcement of the said Act is ordered to

However, an employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that is sentenced simultaneously with a conviction of a sex offense case, and even if there is no illegality in the remaining part of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court also held that the Defendant had the intent to commit indecent act by compulsion.