The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “sexual abuse” prohibited under Article 17 subparag. 2 of the Child Welfare Act means sexual harassment, etc. that causes a child to feel sexual humiliation, which may harm the child’s health and welfare or disrupt the normal development of the child.

This includes an act separate from “obscenity act” and a sexual act that does not reach the degree of sexual assault also includes an act that is likely to seriously impede the development of perfect and harmonious personality by violating the concept of sexual assault and creating a sound sexual values of a child (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do3448, Jun. 15, 2017). Whether it constitutes such an act ought to be objectively determined in accordance with the sound social norms of the age, comprehensively taking into account the specific circumstances, such as the offender and victimized child’s intent, gender, and age, whether the victimized child has the ability to exercise properly his/her right to sexual self-determination, whether the victimized child has sexual values and judgment to the extent that the victimized child has the ability to exercise properly his/her right to sexual self-determination, the relationship between the offender and the victimized child, the background leading to the act, the form of the act, and the influence of the victimized

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7787 Decided July 9, 2015). 2. As indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant, a male of 50 adults, took pentine into the first-year female victimized children of the middle school, which had been passing before her new pentium, into the pent and pentine, and (b) he/she ought to grow up with the pentle if he/she becomes a male-child friend; and (c) he/she is so doing so; (d) so far as the windows are so big; (e) they are friended; and (e) they drive the victimized children from the pentry, “I will come up with the following day.”