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. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) sent the victim E (the name; hereinafter “victim”) on the front of D on October 15, 2016, located in Jinjin-gun C, Namjin-gun, Seoul on the front of about four years before the end of the four-year period; and (b) took a part in a person who dissipates the part of the victim’s shoulder in an anti-comforcing mind; and (c) there was no fact that the victim’s chest turned on, as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the lower court.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the sentence of imprisonment for six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the lecture for sexual assault treatment of forty hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of indecent act by official determination 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, constitutes an offense subject to disclosure and notification 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 doing so, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged but omitted the judgment on the order to disclose and notify the personal information of the Defendant, and where all or part of the order to disclose and notify the personal information is unlawful, the order to disclose and notify the information is an incidental disposition that is issued simultaneously with the conviction, and all or part of the order to disclose and notify the information is reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do5291, 2012, Jun. 28, 2012). Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will examine below.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The relevant legal doctrine is the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged.