The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Scope of trial of the political party after remand;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted the Defendant on the charge of quasi-rape, etc. of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. 2) On the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the guilty portion, and unfair sentencing, the prosecutor appealed on the grounds of erroneous determination

3) Prior to remand, the lower court partially accepted the Defendant’s appeal against the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse ( quasi-rape, etc.) as stated in the judgment of the lower court, and determined that the “indecent act by compulsion” was not established, and reversed the above part and determined the sentence ex officio without undergoing changes in the indictment. However, the lower court reversed the entire conviction part on the ground that the remaining guilty part and the remaining guilty part are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquitted portion of the judgment of the lower court. (4) The Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the lower court

The prosecutor did not appeal.

5) The Supreme Court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act by compulsion) as stated in the judgment below. However, this part is reversed on the ground that “it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to changes in the indictment in the judgment prior to remanding the case” as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (in case of juvenile rape, etc., it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to changes in the indictment before sending the case, and on the ground that the remaining criminal facts