The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) A copy of each counseling letter (Evidence No. 2 and 3) adopted by the lower court as evidence of misunderstanding the legal doctrine has the character of “a statement prepared by a person other than the Defendant outside of the investigation process,” to which Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies. Defendant 1 had the character of “a statement prepared by the person other than the Defendant outside the investigation process.” Since it was not written by the author’s own pen, and there was no signature or seal, the author I recognized the authenticity

Even if it is inadmissible, it is not admissible.

Nevertheless, the court below held that each of the above evidence is admissible.

In light of the foregoing, the lower court convicted the Defendant on the ground of its conviction. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of evidence of the written statement prepared by a person other than the Defendant [ although the Defendant used stenographic records (E) and a statement recorded CD (E) as the ground for appeal, it is not separately determined on the ground that the Defendant consented to the evidence at the third trial date of the first instance trial, and withdrawn the above assertion. 2] On March 2016, 2016, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit an indecent act against the victim E (a false name) on the ground that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim E (a false name) in the process, but the Defendant did not constitute a coercion or coercion, and thus did not have any intention to commit an indecent act against the Defendant.

B) There was no fact that the Defendant committed an act of using sparing the victims as stated in the facts charged.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (five years of suspended sentence for three years of imprisonment and forty hours of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the facts charged ex officio, and the prosecutor changed the name of the crime into “indecent conduct by a minor,” and changed the applicable provisions into “Article 305 and Article 298 of the Criminal Act,” respectively, and the part of the facts charged in the previous facts charged as indicated in the separate sheet.”