The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

(b) the defendant;

1. The lower court rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the case of the Defendant, and that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case of the attachment order, and only the Defendant appealed.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the defendant's case.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or legal principles (as to the violation of the Child Uniforms Act (in the case of coercion, intermediary, sexual harassment, etc. against a child), and child welfare violation (child abuse), the victim's statement that the defendant abused the victim by sexually or physically, or abused the victim by physical and emotionally considering the fact that the victim's physical structural structure makes it impossible to have sexual relations without the victim's cooperation, and the victim's statement is contradictory to each other, and is contrary to the third party's statement, there is no credibility.

Around November 28, 2015, the victim received an operation from Ksanbu (hereinafter “the instant operation”) on or around 28 November 2015, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant operation”) was not an abortion operation, but a natural miscarriage. The instant operation (hereinafter “the instant operation”) was also based on the victim’s intent, and thus, the Defendant physically abused the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the guilty of a violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (in the event of coercion, intermediary, sexual harassment, etc. against a child) and a child welfare violation (child abuse), based on the victim’s statement, etc.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning in the item “as to the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.