The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) on the part of the Defendant case did not commit any similar rape or indecent act by force against the victim as stated in each of the criminal facts set forth in paragraph (1) at the time of the original adjudication, and there is no fact that the victim’s body was taken against the victim’s will to cause a sense of sexual shame as stated in paragraph (2)

Furthermore, the classrooms (crimes No. 1-A, (b) and 2-A) and gymnasiums (crimes No. 1-c. 1-c. at the time of original adjudication) among the places of each of the crimes in this case are places open to the students. The Library (crimes No. 1-e and 2-b. at the time of original adjudication) also can witness the crimes committed within the Library because they are seated in the place where all the library is able to see the inside the library.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the sole basis of the statements made by victims and G with no credibility in the absence of objective evidence, such as photographs taken at the time.

The imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact that each of the instant crimes committed by the prosecutor (unfairness) was repeatedly committed by the Defendant, who was the teacher of gathering office, through several times, and the nature of the crime is poor, the punishment imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

It is improper to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years in part of the attachment order case.

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts against the part of the Defendant’s case, the lower court also asserted the same as the lower court, and as to this, the lower court from the sixth grade of the elementary school where the victim was aware of the part of the damage inflicted upon the teacher E.