A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the point of coerciond indecent act by a person on October 15, 2015 and the point of assault) did not commit an indecent act by force against the victim F, or assault the victim J, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order 120 hours, and the order to attend lectures for violent treatment is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. On October 15, 2015, the prosecutor tried to revise the indictment and applied for the amendment of the indictment to “before the E convenience stores located in the Southerndong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, on October 15, 2015,” among the charges of forced indecent conduct on or around October 15, 2015, the Defendant “on or around October 15, 2015, around the E convenience stores located in the Namdong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City,” and “on or around October 23:50, at the time and place indicated in paragraph (a)” among the charges of assault, the Defendant applied for the amendment of the indictment to “on or around the date stated in paragraph (1) and the E convenience stores mentioned in paragraph (a)” to “on or around the date mentioned in paragraph (1) and the above E convenience stores,” and the judgment below was no longer maintained.

B. The crime of indecent act by failing to give public notice constitutes a sex offense subject to registration under Article 42(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and thus subject to disclosure and notification orders under Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

In such a case, the court below found the defendant guilty of each forced indecent act, but omitted the judgment on the disclosure and notification order of personal information against the defendant, and where the disclosure and notification order is an incidental disposition simultaneously with the conviction and all or part of the disclosure and notification order is unlawful, the remaining part of the case is not erroneous.