The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles on prosecutor’s reasoning of appeal is that “a facility for the elderly who needs assistance due to the occurrence of a substantial disability in the heart” is “a facility for the elderly who is in need of assistance” under Article 6(7) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the Defendant was not an employee of facilities for the purpose of protecting and educating persons with disabilities and rendered a not guilty verdict of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

The punishment of the court below (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for one year and forty hours) that is unfair for sentencing is too unhutiled and unfair.

The sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The interpretation of the penal provisions regarding the prosecutor’s argument of misunderstanding the legal principles should be strict, and the interpretation or analogical interpretation of the meaning of the express language to the disadvantage of the defendant is not allowed as a violation of the principle of statutoryism (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3053, Dec. 10, 2009). The term “facilities for the protection, education, etc. of the disabled” provided for in Article 6(7) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is not limited to the protection facilities for the disabled provided for in the Welfare of the Disabled Persons Act in light of the language and text thereof.

However, the above provision intends to specifically increase and punish the crimes committed by the head or employee of a facility for the protection, education, etc. of the disabled persons against the disabled persons subject to the protection and supervision of the facility. Therefore, in order to punish the accused specifically by the above provision, it is clear that the “D” is a facility for the protection, education, etc. of the disabled persons for the purpose of “purpose

In doing so, the court below duly adopted and examined the case.