The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (indecent act by compulsion), the Defendant and the person requesting a probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the victim B (hereinafter “victim”).

) The fact that the Defendant brought the Defendant’s sexual organ toward the victim’s body is recognized, but the Defendant did not have committed an indecent act on the part of the victim’s shoulder and arms. The victim appears to have misunderstanding that part of the part of the Defendant’s body was frighten in the victim’s body while performing the Defendant’s act of taking the Defendant’s sexual organ toward the victim’s body, and that the victim committed an act of frightening the Defendant’s body in the victim’s body. Moreover, the victim was misunderstanding that the Defendant was frighten in the victim’s sexual organ and reported that the Defendant was frighten in the victim’s body. Accordingly, recognizing that the Defendant intentionally committed an act of self-defense while frightening the Defendant’s body in the victim’s body, and that such act constituted an indecent act by force, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of indecent act by compulsion and misapprehending legal principles. 2) The Defendant’s punishment of imprisonment (one and a half years’ imprisonment) is too unfair.

3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to be placed on employment in the child and juvenile-related institutions and welfare facilities for the disabled for three years, respectively. 4) Even though it cannot be readily determined that the Defendant was in danger of re-prevention of sexual crimes, it is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to be placed on probation for three years.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is unfair as it is too unfasible and unfair. 2) The lower court’s improper exemption from disclosure or notification order is unreasonable to exempt the Defendant from disclosure or notification of the personal information.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal before determining ex officio.

A. The part of the defendant's case is examined.