The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant case 1) Each police interrogation protocol and each interrogation protocol of the police interrogation protocol for the accused and the respondent for attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) are evidence prepared during illegal arrest without presenting a warrant of arrest in advance. Since the pictures of the Defendant, which the Defendant sustained at the time of the instant crime, are evidence obtained by searching the Defendant’s residence without a warrant of search and seizure, they constitute illegally collected evidence and thus, are inadmissible.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the admissibility of evidence and recognized it as evidence of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the admissibility of evidence.

B) The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, did not intentionally discover the victim, and did not appear in front of the bus, but did not confirm that the victim was locked before the instant indecent act. ② Although the victim cannot be deemed to have been in the state of mental disorder or failing to resist at the time of committing the instant crime, there was an error of mistake of facts, etc. in the judgment of the court below finding the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the charges of quasi-indecent act, although the lower court, as to the instant facts charged, should be based on the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act at the Public Place), rather than quasi-in

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable. 3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to be placed on employment for three years in child and juvenile-related institutions.

B. It is unreasonable that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for three years, although the defendant does not have the risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crime.

2. Ex officio determination.