The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The term "children and juveniles-related institutions, etc." in the text of the original judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Under Article 21 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the statute of limitations shall not be interpreted to include cases where a person under the age of 13 is punished by committing a crime under Article 298 of the Criminal Act, and cases where a person under the age of 13 is punished by an aggravated punishment as part of the elements of a crime.

The public prosecution of this case was instituted on October 23, 2019 after the expiration of the seven-year statute of limitations from N that became the victim of adult, and thus a judgment of acquittal shall be pronounced.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 10 years of employment restriction order) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

In the lower court’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the grounds for appeal, the Defendant alleged the same purport as otherwise alleged in the above misapprehension of the legal doctrine. The lower court, in its part on the “Determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion,” in Article 21(3)1 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 16445, Aug. 20, 2019), where the following crimes are committed against a person under the age of 13 or a person with a physical or mental disability, notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), does not apply the statute of limitations prescribed in Articles 249 through 253 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Articles 291 through 295 of the Military Court Act, as well as the case concerning the punishment of a person under the age of 13 as prescribed in Article 298 of the Criminal Act.