The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely a victim’s body and body without intent, upon receiving a business report from the injured person, etc., and there was no indecent act as indicated in the lower judgment.

2) Even if the sentencing was found guilty against the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment (the amount of 4 million won, the completion of sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the judgment.

Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for each defendant of a case, taking into account the seriousness of the crime, the risk of recidivism, etc., while sentencing punishment for an individual sex offense case by the court, and Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall also apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and who have not been finally binding.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles against the judgment of the court is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined below.

3. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility according to the spirit of substantial direct deliberation, the examination of evidence is lawfully conducted in the first instance judgment and the first instance court.