All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 7 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts (defendant) also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal under this part of this case, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by clearly explaining the judgment on the “a summary of evidence” part of the judgment.

Examining these judgments of the court below closely by comparing it with the evidential materials, the judgment is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is without merit.

B. In full view of the factors indicated in the records of the instant case’s judgment (the Defendant and the Prosecutor), the lower court appears to have reasonably determined the sentencing of the Defendant, taking into account all the circumstances, including the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s punishment is modified.

Therefore, the above unfair sentencing argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

(c)

In accordance with Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018 and enforced from July 17, 2018, the court shall issue an employment restriction order at the same time with a judgment on a sex offense case against a child, juvenile, or adult; however, in comprehensively taking into account the defendant's age, occupation, existence of punishment for a sex offense, details and motive of the offense, the method of and consequence of the offense, seriousness of the offense, etc., there are special circumstances in which the risk of recidivism is significantly low or restrictions on employment should not be imposed pursuant to the proviso to Article 56(1) of the aforementioned Act.

Therefore, it is determined.