The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal, E’s legal statement, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although it can be acknowledged that the Defendant committed sexual abuse that may cause sexual humiliation to E by doing sexual intercourse with E, who is a child under the age of 18.

2. Determination

A. Sexual abuse prohibited under the Child Uniforms Act means sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc. that causes a sense of sexual shame to a child, which may injure the child’s health and welfare, or impede normal development, and whether it constitutes such act shall be objectively determined in accordance with the sound social norms of the times by comprehensively taking into account the specific circumstances, such as the offender and victimized child’s intent, gender, and age, whether the victimized child has sexual values and judgment ability to exercise the right to sexual self-determination, relationship between the offender and victimized child, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, impact of the act on the victimized child’s personality and mental health, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7787, Jul. 9, 2015). (b) Whether the lower court duly adopted and duly examined and examined the evidence, namely, whether the Defendant had sexual intercourse between the victimized child and the victimized child’s family or friendly issues, and whether the Defendant had sexual intercourse or sexual intercourse with the E-U.S. Hospital’s ability to exercise the right to sexual self-determination.