The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years.

For the accused, children and juveniles-related institutions.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (the guilty part of the judgment of the court below) 1) misunderstanding the facts of the Defendant’s case (the guilty part of the Defendant’s case) and misunderstanding the legal principles, and the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) agreed with the victim as an annual relationship, and did not engage in sexual intercourse, similarity, or indecent conduct by force.

The victim does not have credibility of the statement because there is a circumstance that he/she intends to take sex assault case with a person who committed a sex act under the agreement with the defendant. The part that is marked as the date when the victim sexual intercourse with the victim was expressed in the single captain of the defendant is also the same as the date when the defendant committed the sexual intercourse with the victim, so it is not always the date when the

However, the judgment of the court below that recognized the credibility of the victim's statement and recognized this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B) The lower court’s sentence (10 years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2) It is unreasonable to attach an attachment order, inasmuch as the Defendant did not commit each of the instant crimes due to the habit of a sexual crime, and thus, does not pose a risk of recommitting a sexual crime.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-finding misunderstanding (the part not guilty in the judgment of the court below) stated on October 8, 2014 that corresponds to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (a quasi indecent act by force) and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (a fraudulent act, etc.) on November 14, 2014. According to the Defendant’s pocket book, the victim’s statement is credibility.

However, the judgment of the court below that held that this part of the facts charged is not sufficient to prove the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2...