Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. Part of the defendant's case

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) did not use the victim’s force of assault or intimidation, and did not inserting his sexual organ into the victim’s resistance and the sound book. However, although the victim attempted to inserting his sexual organ into the victim’s sound book, it was refused by the victim’s refusal as a result of the victim’s body being sealed and the victim’s refusal of inserting his body was immediately interrupted and the Defendant’s attempt was immediately interrupted. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the charge of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (compact, etc.) was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment in light of the various sentencing factors of the case on unfair sentencing.

B. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts is based on the legal principles as to the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and as such, it is possible to use the social, economic, and political status or authority of the offender as well as assault and intimidation, as well as to use the social, economic, and political status or authority of the offender. Whether a person has sexual intercourse with another person should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the content and degree of the tangible power exercised and the type of the offender’s status or authority, the victim’s age, the relationship between the offender and the victim, the background leading up to the act, the specific form of act, and the circumstances at the time of the crime.

B. From the lower court to the same effect as the argument in the above grounds for appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in full view of all the circumstances in its reasoning based on the aforementioned legal doctrine, namely, “i.e., the investigative agency and the victim.