The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

"Child and juvenile-related institutions, etc." in the text of the original judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the defendant acted or made a speech as stated in the facts charged by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

Even if not,

Even if the acts listed in Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are not considered an indecent act or sexual abuse.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, etc.) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant and the defense counsel argued the same purport at the original instance, and the lower court, in full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the legal principles as indicated in the judgment and duly admitted and investigated evidence, rejected such assertion on the grounds that such act constituted an indecent act or sexual abuse.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in comparison with the evidence record, the judgment of the court below is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts as alleged by the defendant or defense counsel, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting

The defendant and defense counsel's allegation in this part is without merit.

B. As to the allegation of unfair sentencing, the relevant legal principles refer to cases where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific contents of the case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, when comprehensively considering the conditions and sentencing criteria of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing hearing process, the sentencing judgment of the court below is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, or the court below’s sentencing judgment is also made in full view of the newly discovered materials in the appellate court’s sentencing hearing process.