The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. As to the part of the Defendant case, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the attachment order case, and as to the part of the attachment order case, only the Defendant appealed, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part of the attachment order case.

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

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) a violation of the Child Welfare Act and a violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse) committed by the Defendant at the time and time indicated in this part of the facts charged, and there was a fact that the Defendant exercised force against the victim D and E. However, this is to the extent that the Defendant inflicted a physical punishment for educational purposes, and it does not constitute abuse as prescribed by the Child Welfare Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. 2) The Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act, etc.) (hereinafter “Juvenile Protection

The defendant does not commit an indecent act against the victim D or contain his fingers in his sexual organ.

The court below found the victim D's statement, the only direct evidence of this part of the facts charged, guilty of all the facts charged, but it is difficult for the court below to believe that it goes against the content of the transcript submitted by the defense counsel.

In addition, at the time of the Defendant’s indecent act against the victim D, it cannot be said that the victim D had exercised the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will.