And all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant case 1) Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).

(2) The lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court’s imprisonment for a period of four years (one-year) is too heavy or too uncomfortable so far as the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim as in paragraph (1) of the lower judgment.

B. The lower court’s determination that dismissed the Defendant’s request for an attachment order of an electronic device because the Defendant’s request for an attachment order is dangerous to repeat a crime is unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts. Although the victim (e.g., 44 years of age, intellectual disability 2 years of age, social age 5 years of age, and intelligence index 40) made a somewhat unclear statement about the period of crime due to intellectual disability, the victim’s statement on the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in the toilet is relatively consistent and specific. The victim stated that the victim would have tried to keep the victim in mind whenever the Defendant was at the victim’s house before the instant crime was committed, and that the victim’s statement was first said to have been injected or educated by his guardian, investigative agency, etc., and it is difficult to view that the victim’s statement was made at the victim’s house and that the victim’s statement was not consistent with the objective circumstances that the victim made in drinking alcohol at the victim’s house and that the victim did not appear to have been aware of the credibility and credibility of the victim’s statement at the court below’s reasonable ground.