All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

On October 11, 2017, the lower court rendered a judgment of innocence on the charge of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts in Occupational Authority, etc.) against the victim B among the facts charged in the instant case, and the Defendant and the prosecutor appealed only on the guilty part, and the part of the Defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal was separated and finalized.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court shall be limited to the guilty part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) With regard to the fact of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act against Occupational Authority, etc.), which the court below found guilty, there is no credibility in the victim’s statement in light of the statements and materials submitted by other witnesses, or the statement alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of indecent act by the defendant without any reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant to have committed an indecent act against the victims as stated in the above facts charged based on the above statement, and there is an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below. 2) In relation to the fact of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act against Occupational Authority, etc.), which the court below found the defendant guilty, the victims are in a superior position with the victim, and therefore the victims cannot be said to have been protected

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspension of execution in six months of imprisonment, community service, 120 hours, 40 hours of completing sexual assault treatment programs, and 3 years of employment restriction are too unreasonable.

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

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts.