A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has worked as a marina branch in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D's "E" head office.

The Defendant, around June 21, 2017, 201:00, got a victim F (V) who was found to be a customer from the above “E” around June 21, 2017, and had been able to bread to breath to breath, e.g., e., whether bread

The victim's negative part was limited because the victim's side was inside buckbucks while stating that the inside will be unbucked.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by means of occupational deceptive scheme.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness F’s legal statement [the defendant and his defense counsel] was the fact that the defendant took a blood 5 cm away from the victim’s negative part in the course of masting, but did not commit an indecent act against the victim by drinking the victim’s negative part, etc.

The argument is asserted.

The crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is established in cases where an indecent act is committed through a deceptive scheme or by force against a person under his/her protection and supervision due to his/her employment and other relationship with him/her.

In the crime of indecent act by deceptive means under Article 10(1) of the aforementioned Act, the term “defensive means that a person commits an indecent act with the intent to commit an indecent act and misleads the other party, sees the other party with the intention to commit an indecent act, causes a misunderstanding, perception, or site, and achieves the purpose of an indecent act by taking advantage of the other party’s cardioficial condition. The term “deficsive act” refers to that a person misleads the other party with the intention to commit an indecent act, commits an indecent act, or commits an indecent act in the context of treatment or religious rites (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9119, Sept. 27, 2012). In this case, the following circumstances, which were duly adopted by the court and duly examined by the evidence, namely,, the victim who was bound by the investigation agency to interfere with the service life of the defendant from this court to this court.