The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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.

1. With respect to the part on forced indecent act among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have any dancing that caused the victim to scam or see the victim’s scam and shoulder.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's argument of reasons for appeal prior to the determination of ex officio.

Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for each defendant of the case, taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the risk of recidivism, etc., upon sentencing the punishment for each sex offense, the court shall set a differential period of employment within the scope of ten years for each defendant of the case. Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that Article 56 of the Act shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and thus, the above amended Act shall also apply to this case.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the following B.

B. In a case where a witness’s statement, including the victim of a judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, is generally consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exists any separate evidence to deem that the witness’s statement is highly reliable, and where the witness’s statement is consistent in the main part thereof.