The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal explicitly withdrawn the misapprehension of legal principles on the three-time trial date at the trial of the first instance court.

A. Fact-misunderstanding victims did not leave the G Assembly members operated by the Defendant on March 12, 2015, and thus there is no fact that the Defendant promoted the victim’s clothes, and on the same day the J, who is the mother of the victim, was prescribed on behalf of the victim on behalf of the victim. As such, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim in the course of promoting the happiness of the victim on March 12, 2015.

Even if the defendant promoted the victim's clothes on March 12, 2015, and during that process the victim's body was in contact with the victim's body.

Even if such act is not related to the diagnosis and treatment or is performed beyond the scope of the diagnosis and treatment, it shall not be deemed an indecent act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete the course) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the defendant in the first instance, and the prosecutor applied the name of the crime against the defendant to "Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse ( quasi-decent act)", and "Article 7 (4) and (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and Article 299 of the Criminal Act" in the applicable legal provisions, "Article 7 (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, Article 298 of the Criminal Act", and "the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by using the state of resistance impossibility of the victim, who is a juvenile," thereby, "The defendant applied for changes to the contents of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse against Sexual Abuse," and the judgment below was modified by this court.