In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Defendant

Around August 2013, the Defendant alleged the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) has committed a sexual intercourse with the victim under the agreement with 20,000 won with the victim. However, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act by force or sexual intercourse with the victim by force on or around October 2013, such as criminal facts at the time of original adjudication.

In addition, since the victim cannot be said to be a person with mental disability, the defendant could not be aware of the fact that the victim is a disabled person at the time of crime.

Nevertheless, the lower court that found the Defendant guilty of both the facts charged of this case (indecent act and sexual intercourse with the disabled) is unlawful.

In light of the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same crime, etc., the punishment (six years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

In light of the mental suffering suffered by the victim due to the instant crime claiming unfair sentencing on the part of the Defendant case by the Prosecutor, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

Although it cannot be deemed that there is a special reason that the defendant's personal information should not be disclosed or notified to the public, it is unfair for the court below to exempt the defendant from the disclosure or notification order of personal information.

In light of the content and frequency of the instant crime, it is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case even if the risk of recommitting a sexual crime is recognized.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the part of the Defendant’s case, the Defendant asserted this part of the grounds for appeal in the lower court. As to this, the lower court, “The following circumstances known through the record, i.e., the victim since the police.