The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant misunderstanding that he was guilty of all the facts charged of this case on the ground of the victim's statement that he did not have any similarity or indecent act, etc. although he was found guilty of all of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the facts constituting the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, since the defendant did not assault or threaten the victim at the time, and since the victim did not have any resistance, it does not constitute a crime of quasi-similar act against the child, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles that affected

(c)

The sentencing sentence of the court below (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the reasoning of the Defendant’s appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of the Defendant’s ex officio, while maintaining the facts charged as to the quasi-similar nature of the child’s juveniles as stated in the indictment as the primary facts charged, “Indecent Acts against the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse” under the ancillary applicable law, “Article 7(5) and 7(2)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children Juveniles against Sexual Abuse” under the conjunctive applicable law, and “the facts constituting the offense,” under the ancillary charges, “the judgment again used,” applied for amendments to the indictment containing the same contents as stated in paragraph (1), and this court permitted this.

As examined below, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of primary facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and this court is not guilty of primary facts charged.