The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts charged in the lower judgment’s judgment, the Defendant did not use force against the victim, as stated in the pertinent facts charged, with regard to Articles 2-A, 2-B, and 3 of the facts charged.

Although the defendant demanded the payment of the money borrowed from the victim to the victim but stated to the effect that he left the victim to the empty building, it is difficult to see that these actions constitute force.

In the case of paragraph (3) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, the defendant did not make a statement during the investigation process that he was frightening the victim and that he was frightening.

Although the investigative agency made statements at will, it has prepared a protocol with the same content.

Even so, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the crimes under this part, which constitutes an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with 5 years imprisonment and 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (e.g., deceptive scheme) is a “sexual intercourse with or indecent act against a child”. In this case, the force refers to the ability sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will, and it is possible to use the offender’s social economic status or political authority as well as the threat of assault, as it is not a tangible or intangible. Whether a sexual intercourse or prosecution has been committed by force or by force shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the content and degree of the tangible power exercised, the type and degree of the offender’s status or authority, the victim’s age, the relationship before the perpetrator and the victim, the background leading to such act, the specific form of act, and the circumstances at the time of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4818, Aug. 23, 2007).