The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

For the defendant.

The court below rendered a judgment to dismiss the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the case of the defendant and the part of the case of the case of the attachment order, and the only defendant appealed. Thus, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the case of the attachment order claim.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, 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. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of

Inasmuch as misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding the legal doctrine does not commit an indecent act by force against the victim by assault or intimidation to the extent that it would make it difficult for the Defendant to resist, the instant indecent act ought to be based on not only on “voluntary indecent act by assault or intimidation” as prescribed by Article 6(3) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, but also on “an indecent act by force” as prescribed by Article 6(6) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of indecent act by assault and intimidation of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below (the completion of sexual assault treatment programs with 1 year and 6 months and 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant resided in the family of the victim D with visual disability 1 located in Seogu-gu, Daegu from around 2008 to around 2013 with the victim’s mother, E, and the victim’s mother. From around September 2013 to September 2016, the Defendant resided in the Daegu Suwon-gu F and continued to teach with E.

The defendant is the victim from March 2012 to April 201 of the same year.