In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

A. The defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are erroneous or misunderstanding the legal principles, and there was a fact that the victim, who was walking earlier, did not go beyond the ground due to the influence of alcohol, and did not look at the victim's chest.

The defendant voluntarily saw the victim's bad drinking water by the victim, and the victim is the same as the victim walked while walking again, and there is a fact that the defendant got the victim's bad drinking, but he did not put the victim's her tack.

Therefore, the defendant was not forced to commit an indecent act against the victim, and there was no intention to commit an indecent act.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the facts charged of this case guilty. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and unreasonable.

C. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the unfair disclosure notification order to disclose the information on the Defendant for five years.

It is unfair that the court below's improper order of employment restriction to the defendant for five years at child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for the disabled.

E. It is unreasonable that the lower court ordered the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years, although the Defendant did not pose a risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crimes.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal under this part of this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, with a detailed statement of its determination. 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the victim from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, i.e., the Defendant’s hand over the victim from the lower court to the lower court.