Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order - misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing 1) - The Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed an indecent act against the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed an indecent act against the victim by force, but did not have committed an indecent act against the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by the statement of the victim

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, disclosure and notification orders, and electronic device attachment orders) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor - The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s facts, the lower court also asserted that this part of the appeal is identical to the grounds for appeal.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the court below found that the defendant could have committed an indecent act against the victim by force:

The defendant's argument was rejected.

(1) The victim's credibility is high, such as making a specific statement to the extent that it is difficult for the victim to speak unless he/she directly experience about the date, time, place, situation of the victim's damage from the defendant, the method and physical part of the victim's body, and the perception, etc. of the victim at the

② The witness J testified that “the Defendant was faced with the victim’s buckbucks, and the Defendant was seated on the part of the victim,” and testified to the effect that “the Defendant was engaged in the computer.”

(3) The results of genetic appraisal of the body felging around the victim's entrance and the defendant's key in collecting the mouth of the defendant's mouth were not detected in DNA, but in contact with other body parts in the vicinity of the flag or the flag, food preservation measures are taken.