The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the defendant's case, the defendant should be convicted of all the charges of this case in light of the following: (i) the defendant changed his confession statement to an investigative agency in the original trial to fully deny the facts charged; (ii) the defendant's vindication as to the reversal of his statement is not reasonable; (iii) the victim's statement on up to 16 persons merely because he did not go through the criminal identification procedure is hard to view credibility; and (iv) the victim's appearance is consistent with the victim's thought that the victim is a criminal.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted some of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (the part of the crime of unfair sentencing) is too unjustifiable and unfair. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, 120 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of order of disclosure notification).

B. As to the case for which the attachment order was requested, the lower court erred by dismissing the Defendant’s request for attachment order against the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the Defendant”), despite the risk of recidivism.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. Fact-finding (1) The Defendant’s absence in each of the instant sites may be deemed proven with respect to each of the indecent acts by force around January 15, 201 and around January 18:00 on January 15, 201. (2) The direct evidence as shown in each of the facts charged lies in the prosecutor’s and the Defendant’s protocol of interrogation of the Defendant in preparation of the judicial police assistant, each of the victims and witnesses’ respective legal statements, and the police statements.

3. First of all, since each protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the judicial police assistant denies its contents, it cannot be admitted as evidence, and each protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor containing the confession statement of the accused as to the violation of the Child Welfare Act constitutes each of the above crimes.