The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

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

1. On August 28, 2019, the accused and the defense counsel of the gist of the grounds for appeal withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the fifth trial date of this court.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant in relation to the incidental disposition is led to confession and reflect in this court, and is faithfully serving as a teacher, the court below's disclosure notification order and employment restriction order is unfair.

2. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, even though the Defendant, as a teacher, has the duty to faithfully guide and protect the victims who are students, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes by taking advantage of the teacher’s position, and the victims appear to have caused considerable suspicions and sexual humiliation due to the Defendant’s criminal act as a juvenile constituting sexual identity and values. In the event of the instant case, the Defendant oiled the students, other than the victims, to send text messages, or to intentionally distort the facts through a third party, and tried to intentionally distort the facts by intentionally, by expressing the contents that are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the court agreed with the victims that the victims would not want the punishment of the defendant, that the defendant did not have the same criminal record and only had the criminal record of a fine, and that the defendant denied all the crimes at the first time in this court, but all the crimes were recognized during the last trial, and that the defendant took an attitude against the victim.

In addition to these circumstances, considering all the sentencing factors of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime was committed, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. As to the assertion regarding the incidental disposition