In addition, the appeal by the requester for the order to observe the protection is dismissed.

A. 1) The lower court’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine on Defendant case’s application of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes to the instant crime is unreasonable.

2) A mentally and physically weak Defendant and a claimant for an order to observe the protective order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. There is a risk that a criminal defendant will recommit a sexual crime with regard to a case requiring an order to observe protection.

Therefore, it is reasonable to dismiss the request for observation order of the protection of this case.

Even if it is not so, the protection observation period of five years ordered by the court below to the defendant is too long and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by opening and intrusioning the victim’s residence.

Therefore, the court below's application of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 319 (1) and Article 299 of the Criminal Act to the crime of this case is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles.

subsection (b) of this section.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) As to the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant appears to drink at the time of the instant crime; however, in light of the background and method of the crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the Defendant’s attitude of testimony and statement, etc., there was a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions.

Since it is not recognized, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3) The Defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine regarding the wrongful assertion of sentencing, and the degree of indecent act committed in the instant crime is relatively heavy, and the Defendant is a person with a disability in the sixth degree.