The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts did not commit an indecent act against the victim’s chest, such as deceiving or taking custody of the victim’s chest, and did not place his sexual organ in the victim’s entrance. 2) In the absence of the Defendant’s consent, recording files and each investigation report on them constitutes illegally collected evidence, and thus, the court below admitted the admissibility of evidence and adopted it as evidence. (B) Although the Defendant did not exercise any assault or intimidation against the victim at the time of the instant case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on assault and intimidation.

B. Prosecutor’s unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment for a maximum term, one year and six months) is too minor.

2. Ex officio determination of the Defendant, as a trainee, falls under “juvenile” as stipulated in Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and was sentenced to an irregular term of punishment, but it is apparent that it was no longer applicable to a juvenile under the age of 19, and therefore, the lower judgment that sentenced the Defendant to an irregular term of punishment was no longer maintained as above.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion that it constitutes illegally collected evidence, Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “Any evidence collected in violation of the due process shall not be admitted as evidence.” Thus, the evidence collected in violation of the procedure prescribed by the relevant statutes, such as the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, is not admissible as evidence for conviction in principle, since it does not follow the lawful procedure prepared to guarantee fundamental human rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 15, Nov. 15, 2007).