1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years;

3. However, for a period of three years from the date this ruling becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not have any intent to sexual harassment or commit an indecent act against the victims, and rhying or using the victims’ grandchildren and arms, etc. to see and encourage the victims of the damage.

Therefore, there was no intention to commit sexual harassment or indecent act against the defendant.

B. Legal principles [Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse] The Defendant only committed an act such as taking the hands or taking the shoulder of the victims, and considering the degree of the type of force that the Defendant exercised, even if the Defendant’s act constitutes an indecent act, it should be deemed that the Defendant’s act constitutes an indecent act, not an indecent act against the Defendant, but a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (an indecent act by force, etc.) or a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (an indecent act by force, etc.).

(c)

The punishment of the court below (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

(d)

It is unreasonable for the court below to order the disclosure and notification of information on the defendant for three years.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, first, in light of the violation of the Child Uniforms Act (abrupting, mediating, sexual harassment, etc. against a child), the Defendant’s expression to the victims who were merely high school 1 and 2 years of age, such as “ female panty shall be off,” and “ female spanty shall be removed well only on the bridge,” constitutes sexual harassment that leads to a sense of sexual morality in light of the general public’s good sense of sexual morality, and that it constitutes sexual abuse that leads to a sense of sexual humiliation that leads to a sense of sexual humiliation that leads to a sense of sexual humiliation that may undermine the health and welfare of the victims or obstructs normal development, and that is sufficiently recognized by the Defendant’s intent.

Next, there is a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.