The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

80 hours per the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Prosecutor 1) Unreasonable sentencing on the part of the Defendant case: The lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for attachment order against the Defendant.

2. We also examine the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s argument regarding the accused case.

The fact that all the defendants recognize the crimes of this case, and that there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, each of the crimes of this case is not very good because the defendant committed an indecent act by compulsion and quasi-sexual act in order to address his sexual desire by neglecting his duty to rear and protect the victim who is his father/child in a sound manner and by neglecting his/her duty to protect him/her.

The victim was exposed to sexual assault crimes of friendly parents at a very important time to form a correct sense and identity, but the family did not have any help anywhere in terms of fear of destroying the family, family's livelihood problems, etc. and did not have any physical and mental suffering, and did not have any help from anyone including her mother.

In addition to the facts indicated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim was guilty of sexual indecent conduct from the Defendant to the fifth year from the elementary school, and the victim was suffering from the Defendant’s sexual indecent conduct from the Defendant, “I am able to see whether the Defendant was sexual indecent conduct, and I am buckbucks where I am at school.”

In the trial process of the court below, the statement showing the victim's wife was written, but according to the pre-trial investigation conducted by this court, the victim received three copies of the Google 50,00 won card from her mother (the spouse of the defendant) and her mother.