Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (the primary charge that is not guilty) (the part concerning the Defendant’s primary charge) committed an indecent act by force by forcing the victim’s arms who was found out of the Defendant to be forced and forced by force. This act constitutes an exercise of a tangible power to the extent that it would be difficult for the victim to resist.

In addition, the defendant was not the victim in the prosecution investigation.

In light of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of committing the crime, was aware of the circumstances that were not deemed victims.

In addition, as long as the defendant committed an indecent act, such as coercion of the victim's arms, it is recognized that there was an intentional indecent act committed against the defendant at the time of committing the crime, so long as he/she committed an indecent act, such as coercion of the victim's arms.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes due to forced indecent conduct, which is the primary charge of the instant case, and found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes due to attempted indecent conduct, which is the primary charge of the instant case, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on forced indecent conduct

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is so unfair that the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued.

3) There is a risk of re-offending in light of the fact that the criminal defendant was not clearly aware of the serious sex crime committed by the improper defendant to be exempted from a disclosure order of personal information.

Therefore, the court below's decision that exempted the defendant from the disclosure notification order of personal information is improper.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1).