Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the disclosure and notification of the Defendant’s information via an information and communications network for a period of two years.

3. Determination

A. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant is against the Defendant, making a confession of all of the instant crimes.

The defendant has received a letter from the victims, and the degree of tangible force the defendant has exercised shall not be excessive.

The defendant seems to have resided relatively in a relatively sincere manner in supporting the old parent, and social ties seems to be clear, such as the defendant's family and branch members wanting to take the defendant's wife against the defendant.

However, by taking advantage of the superior position of the representative director of the company, the defendant continuously committed the crime against the victims who are female employees of the company, and the degree of indecent acts, such as her her mbbbbbbbbbs, etc., is also less and less.

The victims of the first-year social life have been suffering from a huge mental impulse due to the defendant's crime and complained for fear of unsatisfying and social life.

In particular, on November 7, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine due to forced indecent act by the Daegu District Court.