The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

(b) the defendant;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It was true that the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order and the respondent for a probation order (hereinafter “defendant”) committed a violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse) against each of the victims (i.e., misunderstanding of facts). However, this was made at the level of the victim’s discipline, and there was no intention or intention to inflict physical abuse on the victim’s physical health and development.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges guilty. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) There is no difference between the Defendant and the victim of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape) and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged on the grounds of the victim’s statement without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts - The victim C had been deprived of the Defendant continuously from the time when she was committed, and as a result, the Defendant had been placed in a very rough manner, thereby resisting the Defendant about his/her sexual relation demand or failing to indicate his/her intention of refusal. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on all charges of this part of the charges on the grounds that it is difficult for the victim to find that his/her psychological or physical resistance is absolutely impossible or considerably difficult. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.