The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, it shall be sentenced to eight months.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case against which the Defendant was found guilty and the part of the attachment order case, and only the Defendant appealed against this.

Therefore, the part of the attachment order case shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, as there is no benefit in appeal.

2. Improper sentencing on the gist of reasons for appeal: The punishment of the court below (the imprisonment of 8 months in the judgment of the court below and the imprisonment of 2 years in the judgment of the court below) is too heavy.

On the premise that the Defendant did not commit a sexual crime against the original victims, the Defendant argued that the instant facts charged were cited as grounds for appeal, such as misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, etc., in addition to the aforementioned argument on sentencing, but the Defendant, while making a confession of all the facts charged during the trial, withdrawn the allegation of mistake of facts

3. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the first instance trial, the prosecutor filed an oral application for changes in the indictment from November 2004 to December 1, 2004, which changed the date and time of the crime under Article 1 of the facts charged in the instant case related to the crime under Article 1 of the judgment of the court below to “the period from November 2004 to December 2004,” and the subject of the judgment of the court was changed according to the permission of this court.

Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below No. 1 is no longer maintained.

B. After determining the grounds for appeal, this paper examines the Defendant’s unfair argument in sentencing.

In order to resolve his distorted sexual desire against the victims who have been trusted to the extent that they are not different from their parents, the Defendant committed an anti-humanistic crime of sexual assaulting the victims by taking advantage of the status between their relatives.

In the case of the victim D, the sexual identity of the victim is established.