The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the dismissed part among the public prosecution, shall be reversed.

As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant.

1. Progress of judgment;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution against the charge of an indecent act by force on August 25, 2012, and concurrently dismissed the Defendant and the requester for the observation order on protection (hereinafter “Defendant”).

The Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Sexual Crimes") shall apply to the remaining compulsory indecent acts.

Recognizing that the defendant is guilty of all violations (Observance of confidentiality, etc.), 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor, 1-B of the decision of the court below, 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor, 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, 3 years of disclosure of information, and 1-B of the decision of the court below, were sentenced to an order to observe the protection of the defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed against the guilty part of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing and unfair disclosure notification order.

B. Prior to the remand, the appellate court rejected the Defendant’s unfair argument of sentencing and unfair disclosure notification order and dismissed the Defendant’s appeal.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed on the ground of the violation of law.

(c)

The Supreme Court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act amended in the part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act (Observance of Secrecy, etc.) before remanding, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

After the judgment, the charge of indecent acts by force on July 28, 2016 (Article 1 of the decision of the court below)

B. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the request for a protective observation order should also be reversed, as seen below, on the ground that the part regarding the request for a protective observation order among the facts constituting the cause of the protective observation order should be reversed, and the part concerning the crime of Article 1-A of the judgment of the court below, which is one of the facts constituting the protective observation order, should also be reversed, and the order for disclosure and notification order to be issued simultaneously with the judgment to be issued concurrently with the judgment to be issued concurrently with the conviction should be reversed, the entire judgment of the court below prior to the return should be reversed and remanded to this

2. The lower court, subject to the judgment, committed an indecent act by force on August 25, 2012 among the facts charged of the instant case.