The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. The court below found that there was no proof that two of the facts charged of indecent act by blood with the defendant's total six relatives had committed an offense, and found the defendant guilty of attempted indecent act by blood and relatives included in the facts charged.

Defendant filed an appeal against the guilty portion of the lower court, and the prosecutor also appealed only for the guilty portion, and did not file an appeal against the acquittal portion of the aforementioned reasons.

In such a case, according to the indivisible principle of appeal, the portion of innocence as well as the part of the judgment of conviction is transferred to the trial in the first instance. However, since the part of innocence is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties and is de facto separated from the object of attack and defense, this court cannot re-determine the said part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do4740, Sept. 25, 2008; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Therefore, the scope of the trial in this court is limited to the remaining part of the judgment below except the part of innocence, and the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is to be followed with respect to

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 5 years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. The instant crime committed by the Defendant is an indecent act four times by taking advantage of the impossibility of resisting the victim, who is his father of his spouse in de facto marital marriage, and attempted to commit an indecent act twice by taking advantage of the same means of resistance impossible condition, but the victim did not sleep and did not commit an attempted act.

The Defendant is both aware of and against his criminal acts.

The defendant is sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for an attempted special larceny in 1989.