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

A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order; 1) Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are only the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the victim guilty, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though there was no fact of indecent act by force at the time and place of crime record. (2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The above sentence imposed by the lower court on the ground that it is too uneasible and unfair. 2) The lower court’s dismissal of the request for an attachment order is unjust, since the Defendant’s dismissal of the attachment order is recognized as a risk

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail under the title “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records, the above judgment is justifiable and acceptable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties, the defendant's liability for the crime is heavy by compulsion of six-year-old female children, and the defendant's 5-year-old female children's clothes and pantyty, prior to the above crime, with the judgment of four years of imprisonment for a period of suspension of three years (the final judgment on March 4, 201) (the final judgment on March 24, 201), which was issued on February 24, 201 and did not know about the crime of this case while the defendant committed the crime of this case while being sentenced to a three-year-old suspended sentence (the final judgment on March 4, 201), there is a lack of sufficient color of reflectiveness as set forth in the sentencing guidelines while denying his own crime, and due to the crime of this case, the proper sexual values or identity is formed.