아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)등
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
except that this judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).
(1) Of the Defendant’s case, the Defendant did not have any misunderstanding of facts as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below. (2) Even if misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant committed the same act as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of
This does not constitute sexual abuse under the Child Welfare Act.
3) The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable and unfair. (B) The defendant's misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (with respect to the acquittal portion among the defendant's case) constitutes an exercise of tangible power as a constituent element of so-called indecent act on drinking, and the above act of the defendant constitutes a crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (B). The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unjust.
2) Of the facts charged against the Defendant for whom a request to attach an electronic device is filed, the Defendant’s location tracking device attachment order should also be cited to the extent that the Defendant is guilty of committing a crime of indecent act by compulsion (absent act by compulsion) and the Defendant is likely
2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant
A. 1) The judgment of the court below also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail by stating in detail the decision on the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel in Article 2(2) of the judgment of the court below. 2) The judgment of the court below is based on the appellate court under the current Criminal Procedure Act, but the ex post facto examination factor is reasonable.