The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime is an indecent act committed by the Defendant by force against the victim who is only nine years of age, and the liability for the instant crime is very heavy, and the fact that the victim who was nine years of age at the time due to the instant crime appears to have suffered a sense of sexual shame and suffered a sense of sexual humiliation is considered to be disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, when the defendant made confession of the crime of this case and made a mistake against his depth, the defendant sought a letter of favor from the victim in the trial, the parent of the victim and the victim, accepted it and did not want to be punished by the defendant, and the defendant has no particular criminal history other than that punished by a fine on two occasions, etc. in favor of the defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances and the character, conduct and environment of the defendant, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (two years to six years of imprisonment)

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months to fifteen years;

2. The scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria (the determination of types of sex offenses);

D. In full view of the reduction elements of a sex offense subject to the age of less than 13 [Type 3] indecent act by compulsion (special person): The defendant's above assertion is reasonable, since the punishment imposed by the court below is too inappropriate because it is deemed that the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, in light of the reduction scope of punishment [the recommended field and the scope of recommended punishment], the reduction scope of punishment, two to half years of imprisonment, the suspension

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

[The reasons for the ruling of multiple times] Criminal facts and summary of evidence shall be the court.