The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles [As to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (quasi-similar act), the Defendant, from the beginning of June 2016, 2016, before the police investigation, prepared a reflective statement that recognizes his/her criminal act, and submitted it to the court and the investigative agency. On June 15, 2016, the Defendant was present at the police and voluntarily surrenders himself/herself to the crime of quasi-similar act while undergoing an investigation.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “self-denunciation,” thereby determining that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received a self-denunciation as prescribed in Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court held that the Defendant’s statement of criminal facts in the police investigation can only be deemed a confession, and that there was no other circumstance that the Defendant received self-denunciation, since the “self-denunciation” as referred to in Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act is an expression of intent to voluntarily report and seek the disposition to the government agency responsible for the investigation, in response to an official questioning or investigation by the investigative agency, making a statement of criminal facts in response to an official questioning or investigation is a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011).

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant, who is responsible for raising and protecting the victim who is a shelshel’s father, in a sound manner, commits an indecent act by forcing the victim of kinship by inserting his/her responsibility in the entrance of the victim, and by failing to resist with the victim.