The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of four years and six months.

The defendant's abuse of children for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding (as to the case of this Court 2016 order 1552) 1) ① With respect to the facts of the assaults No. 1, 2, 5, and 7 listed in [Attachment 2] of the instant indictment No. 2, the Defendant did not have committed the above assault against the victim F. As to the facts of the assaults No. 1, 2, 5, and 7 listed in [Attachment 2] of the instant indictment, the Defendant did not have committed such assault to the victim F. In relation to the above assaults No. 2, 3, and 4 listed in [Attachment 1] of the daily chart No. 1 of the above crime. However, there is any fact that the Defendant was scambling by the victim F. However, in relation to the above assaults No. 8 and 9 of the daily chart No. 1 of the above crime list, the Defendant’s hand floor and the

2) With regard to the charge of assault No. 3 of the crime list No. 2 of the crime list No. 3 of the instant facts charged, there was no fact that the Defendant forced the victim H to enter the victim H by force.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an order to complete a child abuse treatment program for a period of four and a half years, or 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio, and the prosecutor changed the same contents as “3...... Violation of the Special Act on the Punishment, etc. of Habitual Violence to Victims H and Child Abuse Crimes (Habitual Assault)” among the facts charged in the case No. 1552 at the trial of the court at the same time, and applied the applicable law by adding “Habitual Assault” to “Article 264 of the Criminal Act,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

However, this part of the facts charged and the remainder of the facts charged against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still valid despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.