The part of the judgment of the court below against the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, Etc.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant violated the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (e.g., deceptive scheme), the Defendant’s access to the victim F, the F’s age and status, and the circumstances that F did not leave the Defendant’s home, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the above part of the charges on the ground that F’s statement alone did not constitute a sexual relationship with the Defendant with the Defendant according to free will, notwithstanding the fact that F was unable to be deemed to have established a sexual relationship with the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The victim F has consistently stated the situation at the time of damage in the investigative agency and the court below’s trial on the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. Therefore, the F’s statement was credibility, despite the credibility of F’s statement, and the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendant of the above part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. Defendant 1) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, e.g., forfeiture (No. 1) is too unreasonable.

2) Considering the criminal history of the criminal defendant who committed an unfair disclosure or notification order, the criminal defendant committed a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (use and photographing of cameras, etc.), the lower court’s disclosure or notification order is unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake on the defendant's case

A. The lower court determined that the victim F had sexual intercourse with the Defendant according to his/her free will, on the grounds that there is room to view that the victim F had sexual intercourse with the Defendant by taking account of the victim F’s talks committed against the Defendant before having sexual intercourse with the Defendant and at the time of sexual intercourse, the victim’s content of the Kakao Stockholm message, sexual intercourse, and the subsequent circumstances before leaving the Defendant, etc., and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was in sexual intercourse with the Defendant by force.

. Recognition.