The guilty portion of the case against the defendant of the judgment below shall be reversed.

Defendant

In addition, three years shall be punished by imprisonment for the claimant for the observation order under protection.

Defendant on September 30, 2016: Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by Person under 13 years of age): Defendant on October 13, 2016, guilty of the lower judgment; Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by Person under 13 years of age): Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by Person under 13 years of age): Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes by Person under 13 years of age: Violation of the lower judgment on November 4, 2016 (private act committed against a minor under the age of 13): Summary of the grounds for appeal on the guilty portion, and the person who requested to observe the Protection Order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).

In fact, on September 30, 2016, the victim was aware of the indecent act by force on September 30, 2016, but there was no exercise of force against the victim's will because the victim was involved in a sudden and contingent punishment.

In October 19, 2016 and on November 4, 2016, each of the similar acts committed each victim's sexual organ, but did not put the victim's fingers into the victim's sexual organ.

The punishment of the court below (the completion of the sexual assault treatment program for 6 years, 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

A) On October 13, 2016, among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant led to the confession of the indecent act committed by himself on October 13, 2016, and as evidence of reinforcement, “total number of damages” is four times in total.

Since the victim’s statement is the victim’s statement, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of other facts charged, but acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The sentence of the lower court’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Judgment

On September 30, 2016, as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court asserted as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court, and asserted as to the Defendant’s indecent act by force on September 30, 2016, under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment