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

A. Although the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not continuously force the victim to commit an indecent act as stated in the facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges due to misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the attachment order and thereby dismissing the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case due to misapprehension of the legal doctrine, etc., although the lower court fully recognizes the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes.

2. Determination:

A. Part 1 of the defendant's case concerning the defendant's assertion of mistake has the same purport as that of the above appeal at the court below, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion by stating in detail the judgment in the "decision on the defendant's and his defense counsel's argument" column. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's defense counsel without merit in the supplementary appellate brief dated August 6, 2012, the defendant's defense counsel asserted that he did not have the victim's failure to resist at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the defendant's defense counsel's assertion is without merit (the defendant's defense continues to exist even after the defendant's victim knew of the defendant's indecent act in his lock during the crime of each quasi indecent act of this case.