The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The phrase “sexual abuse, such as sexual harassment, which causes a sense of sexual humiliation to a child” under Article 71(1)2 and Article 17 subparag. 2 of the Child Welfare Act refers to sexual violence or cruel acts that may harm a child’s health or welfare or impede normal development of the child, and where sexual assault does not reach the degree of sexual assault is also an act that is likely to seriously impede the development of perfect and harmonious personality, such as creating a child’s sound sexual values;

(2) On June 15, 2017, the facts charged in the instant case reveal that: (a) the Defendant offered a proposal that he/she will fasten the victim under the age of 15 using smartphone-type display method; (b) made a sexual intercourse with the victim several times on the vehicle or the mother, and during that process, he/she engaged in sexual abuse against the victim by any series of acts, such as gathering a brush into the victim’s sound book or anus, or inserting his/her fingers into the victim’s sound book or anus by inserting his/her fingers into the victim’s fingers and anus.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of sexual abuse under the Child Welfare Act by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in its reasoning, including the fact that the victim voluntarily states the details of sexual acts committed from the Defendant’s appearance of the above family register act to the point of view without contradiction.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on sexual abuse

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed

For the defendant.