The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, etc., the part 1 of the Defendant case committed the Defendant’s act of spreading the victim E’s sexual organ on three occasions from July 2013 to October 3 of the same year, and the Defendant’s act constitutes indecent act by compulsion. However, the Defendant’s act appears to constitute indecent act under the Criminal Act, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mistake of facts or indecent act under the Criminal Act. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) against the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant’s act is too uneasible.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for attachment order on the grounds that the lower court acquitted the relatives of the victim, the act of indecent act by compulsion by the disabled, and the act of indecent act by compulsion by the disabled under the age of 13.

2. Part of the defendant's case

A. The additional prosecutor of the ancillary charge indicted the Defendant on three occasions from July 2013 to October 201 of the same year for each indecent act by force, and charged the Defendant with the sexual organ of the Victim E at each time. The existing facts charged came into existence in the trial and came into existence as the primary facts charged, and the lower court’s ancillary charges are as follows.

As seen in Article 71(1) and (2), Article 17 subparag. 3 and 5 of the Child Welfare Act, Articles 40, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “Child Welfare Act”) were added to the ancillary charges as seen in Article 71(1) and Article 71(1)2, Article 17 subparag. 3 and 5 of the Child Welfare Act, and Articles 40, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act were added to the subject of the judgment. However, the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary charges and the assertion of unreasonable sentencing is still subject to the judgment of this court.

A. The Defendant on July 2013 or

8. Pl. P. P. P. P. of Ulsan-gu at 19-20 P.W.