Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the requester for the order to observe the protection is dismissed.

The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's claim regarding the part of the case against which the defendant was found guilty and the part of the case for which the order to observe the protection was requested, and there is no benefit of appeal as to the part for which the order to observe the protection was requested.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for protection observation order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant

Since the Defendant was in conflict with the victim as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant merely committed an act of physical contact as stated in the facts charged of this case and did not have any intention to commit an indecent act against the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, observation of protection, community service for 240 hours and lecture for sexual assault treatment for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court also argued to the same purport as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court, in light of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim’s police investigation to the court of the lower court, and the fact that the Defendant and the victim were naturally in a pro-friendly relationship to the extent that they would have come to contact with the victim’s body, ② the Defendant did not have any fact that the investigative agency had any negative influence on the victim, and the lower court recognized the fact that the victim was able to reach the victim