All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The lower court dismissed the prosecution concerning the crime of assault among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged, and the Defendant and the prosecutor appealed only to the guilty part of the lower judgment.

Therefore, since the dismissal part of the judgment below is separated and confirmed as it is, this part is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) No erroneous determination of facts does the victim’s sexual organ reach. 2) The sentencing of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable as it is too unreasonable. 2) Although it cannot be readily concluded that there are special circumstances, such as the disclosure and notification of personal information, and the risk of recidivism by the Defendant’s improper exemption from employment restriction order, it is unreasonable to exempt the lower court from disclosure and notification order and employment restriction order.

3. Determination

A. 1) In determining the credibility of a statement of the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall assess the credibility of the statement, taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance and attitude of the witness who is under oath before a judge, and the pencing of the statement, and the fact that the statement of the witness, including the victim, conforms to the facts charged, and conforms to the reasonableness, logic, and morality of the statement itself or the rule of experience, and whether it conforms to the third party’s statement or evidence. The court shall not reject the statement without permission, unless there is any other evidence that can reasonably be objectively deemed to have been objectively deemed to have credibility (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012) and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below: