The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles ① The victim does not constitute a person subject to protection and supervision of the defendant on duty.

② Furthermore, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant explained the Defendant’s method of attaching the victim’s face value, and did not commit an indecent act as indicated in the facts charged, and did not have the intent to commit the crime, and the victim caused sexual humiliation due to the Defendant’s act.

shall not be effective.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles.

B. The sentence that the lower court rendered unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of lecture for treatment of sexual assault, and employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to whether the Defendant was in the position of protecting and supervising the victims of sexual crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do8135, Nov. 29, 2007; 2009Do6800, Sept. 24, 2009); on the premise that the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes was committed by deceptive means or by force against a person under his/her protection and supervision due to his/her duties, employment, or other relations. In such cases, the term “a person under his/her protection and supervision due to duties, employment, or other relations” includes not only those who are in a relationship with the organization protection and supervision by the rules, etc. of the workplace but also those who may have a substantial influence on duties or employment relations within the workplace (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do8135, Nov. 29, 2007; 2009Do6800).