A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The defendant shall be ordered to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

Punishment of the crime

On July 20, 2017, the Defendant came to sit on the back of the driver's seat of the CSpo-type car owned by the Defendant, waiting for a substitute driver with the victim's OO (n, 26 years of age) who is a dispatched employee after completing a drinking job with the company's people, at around 22:20 on the street located in B of the Jeonsan-gu, Jeonju-si.

While the Defendant divided the conversation with the victim, he was able to have the shoulder of the victim so that the victim may not resist against the victim, and other hand the victim's bucks and bucks were met with the victim's bucks.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

The application of the law of the police's statement protocol to the victim of the defendant's legal statement and the prosecutor's statement protocol D

1. Article 298 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The main sentence of Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed to Order;

1. No order to notify registered information is issued pursuant to the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the subject of an order to notify the registered information under Article 47(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 49(1)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, subject to an order to notify the registered information under the main sentence of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the family-based basis of the accused, the necessity of notifying registered information, and the disadvantage of

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant was not a proxy engineer.

It seems that the victim was induced to his own vehicle, and the defendant continued to commit an indecent act for a considerable period of time despite his refusal to do so, and the defendant was a superior as a workplace bonus of the victim.