The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) The Defendant committed a sexual intercourse with the victim on January 1, 2015, and there was no sexual intercourse with the victim from the end of November 2014 to the beginning of December 12, 2015, such as the date and time indicated in the facts charged.

In addition, the defendant has sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim, and there is no fact that he has sexual intercourse with the victim by exercising power against the victim by taking advantage of his status as a police officer.

B) On June 11, 2015, the Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the victim, and even if having sexual intercourse, the Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the victim by exercising the victim’s power as above.

2) As to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children against Sexual Abuse (i.e., purchase of sex), the Defendant, around July 2015, intended to offer money in return for the sexual intercourse to the victim although the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim.

There is no fact that money was paid, and there is no fact that a sexual intercourse with a victim was made on August 2015, and even from the end of September 2015 to October 2015, there was no sexual intercourse with the victim, but the travel expense was not borne in return for the sexual intercourse.

3) As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (using and photographing a camera, etc.), the Defendant taken the body part of the victim with the consent of the victim, and did not have taken the body part of the victim following the death of the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the lower court’s judgment on the violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (e.g., deceptive scheme) among the police officers from the end of November 2014 to the early December 12, 201, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court exercised authority between the Defendant and the early police officers from the end of November 2014 to the early December 12.