The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's defense counsel tried to commit a sexual intercourse with the victim in relation to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (e.g., deceptive scheme, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case on the second trial date following the lapse of the period for submitting the written reasons for appeal. However, the court below's judgment convicting the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to force, although the defendant did not exercise power in the process

However, this can not be a legitimate ground for appeal, which is raised only after the deadline for submitting the Reasons for Appeal.

In addition, even if we look at ex officio, the "power of force" in the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse refers to the sufficient force to suppress the victim's free will, and it is possible to use not only the intimidation but also the social political status or authority of the offender. The issue of whether a person has sexual intercourse with a "power" shall be determined by taking into account the contents and degree of the force exercised, the status of the offender who has exercised it, or the type of the offender's right, the age of the victim, the relationship before the offender and the victim, the background leading to the act, the specific form of act, and the circumstances at the time of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11815, Jan. 16, 2014). According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles by exercising the victim's free will, as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment below.

shall not be effective.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (long-term three years, short-term two years) is too big.