Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the claimant for observation order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower judgment (a two-year imprisonment and an order to complete sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) by the Defendant and the claimant for the order to observe the protection target (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the statement made by H in an investigative agency on the violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (sexual harassment, etc. against a child) among the facts charged in the instant case is specific and consistent, and its credibility is high.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that H’s statement made by the investigative agency is not reliable, and determined that there was no proof of a crime regarding the fact that the Defendant and the claimant for the observation order for protection (hereinafter “Defendant”) alleged to be “dial-a-a-a-counter dial dial dial dial dial dial dial dial dial dial dial dial.”

2) Although misunderstanding the legal principles did not recognize that the Defendant told H and D that “dial-a-a-the-counter.”, the Defendant’s act of causing H and D to go together with the telecom, and the Defendant’s act of showing the mixed sea, which was stored in the three telecom, constitutes sexual harassment, etc. that causes a sense of sexual humiliation as defined in Articles 71(1) and 17 subparag. 2 of the Child Uniforms Land Act.

Nevertheless, the court below did not constitute sexual abuse prohibited by the Child Welfare Act.

The judgment was made by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) Considering the method, frequency, circumstances, the Defendant’s attitude during the investigation process, and the relationship with D, of the instant crime committed by the Defendant in the part of the claim for an order to observe the protection order, the Defendant is highly probable to recommit a sex crime in the future.

Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the defendant's request for an order to observe the protection of the defendant, which is unfair.

4) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court determined on the assertion of mistake of facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.