The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The defendant shall be 40 hours.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request with respect to the case of the accused case claiming the attachment order when declared a guilty verdict, and the defendant appealed only against this, and thus, there is no benefit of appeal with respect to the case claiming the attachment order.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the defendant case constitutes the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which is the primary charge of mistake of facts in the instant case, the Defendant only established a sex relationship by mutual consent with the victim F, and did not commit violence or intimidation to the extent that it makes it impossible or considerably difficult to resist.

Furthermore, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the Victim F was a child or juvenile at the time.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury with deadly weapons, etc.), among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant exercised an unreasonable tangible force against the Defendant by entering the victim E and drinking the Defendant by drinking the car, etc. In order to avoid this, the Defendant merely proceeded with the said car at a low speed, and the victim E merely runs the car in the process. Thus, the illegality as self-defense should be excluded.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to self-defense, which affected the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six years of imprisonment).