The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

For the defendant.

The court below's scope of adjudication was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's request regarding the case of the defendant's case of conviction and the case of the attachment order was appealed only by the defendant. Accordingly, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the case of the attachment order request

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court and the appellate court's case number regarding the request for attachment order has not been assigned to the same purport;

Only the defendant's case falls under the scope of the judgment of this court.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In the statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant asserted that there was a mistake of facts against the rules of evidence concerning the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse among the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, but withdrawn the allegation of mistake during the third trial of the

Then, in the summary of the oral argument submitted on April 28, 2014, which was after the closing of argument in the trial, the Defendant asserted that “the Defendant did not have a victim to continue kis.” However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that punished the above behavior as a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.” However, the facts constituting a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act) in the judgment of the lower court are as follows: “The Defendant forced the victim to have forced it, and was under the influence of the victim,” and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine that punished the above behavior as a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act).

The defendant's act of smugglinging the victim, such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence concerning the death of violence.