The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, this judgment is delivered against the defendant.

1. The part of the defendant case

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) and the misunderstanding of the facts (2017 Gohap 419 Gohap) (the part of the case) are written and routed by the Defendant’s head, sin, and sinching of the victimized child D around February 2016 or around March 2016. However, there is no fact that the Defendant used the head, sin, and sinching of the victimized child D, which is the date and time indicated in the instant facts charged, on July 2016 and January 29, 2017, which are the date and time indicated in the instant facts charged.

B) Legal doctrine misunderstanding (2017 Gohap 468 case) (the part of the case) was rhymd with the Defendant’s hand to view the victimized child H (tentative name). However, the Defendant was only one behavior, not a forced indecent act, and did not intend to commit an indecent act.

2) The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended sentence) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

B. Determination 1) Based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of the facts, the lower court, based on the following: (i) the place of the occurrence of the case; (ii) the circumstance in which the victimized child D was faced with the Defendant and the victimized child; (iii) the circumstance in which the victimized child D was faced with; (iv) the Defendant’s methods and physical parts; and (v) the state of appraisal of the victimized child at the time; and (v) the statement of the victimized child’s sexual assault case, analyzing the statements based on the statement recording video CD and the statement stenographic records, expressed the opinion that the given victimized child was less likely to have made a false statement; and (iii) on January 29, 2017, the F church used the damaged child on the day of the crime committed by the victimized child.

In full view of the facts stated in this part of the facts charged, the defendant can find the fact that the defendant met the head, sin, and sinch of the victimized child at each date and time.

The decision was determined.

D. On January 29, 2017, the day after January 201, 2017, the day after the crime was committed by the court below, which was duly adopted and investigated by the court below, is the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.