All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Recognizing the fact that there was an act as described in the facts charged between the victim and the victim, but in light of the following, the charge of violating the Child Welfare Act (voluntary coercion, exploitation, sexual harassment, etc. against the child) cannot be established against the defendant. Thus, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged erred by mistake of facts as follows. A) At the time of the act of entering the facts charged in Chapter 1, the defendant was aware of the victim as a woman aged 18 years or older, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the intention to sexually abuse the child, such as as described in the facts charged, committed the

B) At the time of the act indicated in the facts charged in Chapter II, the victim had the ability to exercise his right to sexual self-determination, and the Defendant did so with the aforementioned victim’s explicit consent. As such, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed sexual abuse against the victim. 2) The Defendant’s punishment of the judgment of the first instance court on the Defendant of unfair sentencing (a imprisonment of one year, 40 hours, 1 year, 40 hours’ sexual assault treatment program program completion order, 20 hours’ employment restriction order and confiscation of children, juvenile-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities’ respective employment restriction order

(b) The sentence of the first instance judgment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the first instance trial as to the first week, namely, the Defendant stated in the initial police investigation that “the Defendant was a high school student, and was not able to ask his age separately,” and ② the Defendant was the first instance court’s prosecutorial investigation, and the victim was the third grade of high school when he met the victim.