The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

With respect to the part of the case of the defendant, the court below sentenced the defendant guilty and sentenced the prosecutor to dismiss the prosecutor's claim regarding the claim for protection observation order. Since only the defendant appealed against this, the court below did not have any interest in the appeal as to the claim for protection observation order.

Therefore, notwithstanding Articles 9(8) and 21-8 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below's claim for protection observation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

The sentence (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the records, although the defendant's defense counsel submitted the statement of reasons for appeal after the deadline for submitting the written reasons for appeal, the defendant was served on December 16, 2015, and the defendant appointed a private defense counsel on December 22, 2015 after receiving the notice of receipt of the records of the appellate trial of this case. On January 12, 2016, the defendant's defense counsel submitted the statement of argument containing the reasons for unfair appeal of sentencing to this court (the reflective statement submitted by the defendant to this court on January 7, 2016 only contains the purport that the crime of this case is against the crime of this case and does not contain the reasons for appeal). This paper examines ex officio the illegal sentencing asserted on the grounds for appeal.

The crime of this case is likely to be subject to criticism that the defendant committed an indecent act by taking advantage of the age that the defendant came to know with the Internet hosting.

The victim seems to have suffered a sense of sexual humiliation due to the Defendant’s crime of this case.

However, the Defendant, when making a confession of the instant crime for the first time, is seriously against the Defendant’s wrongness, and the Defendant was able to compensate the victim to the extent that it is reasonable and agreed to do so, and the Defendant’s wife was expressed on the part of the victim.

The defendant.