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

A. Part 1 of the case of the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") (related to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the sexual purchase, etc.) under paragraph (1) of the original facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below) did not have sexual intercourse with D by providing D with accommodation and selling clothes, shoes, cosmetics, etc. on the condition that D had sexual intercourse.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant had sexual intercourse in return for the provision of convenience, such as accommodation, to D. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on "the purchase of sex, etc." in the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspension of execution, one year of probation, one year of sexual assault treatment and one hundred and twenty hours of taking a sexual assault treatment course) is excessively unreasonable. (2) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case by the public prosecutor, the lower court’s above sentence is excessively unreasonable and unreasonable.

B. According to the statement of the part regarding which the request for attachment order was made by the prosecutor (public prosecutor) and the Defendant’s Kakakao Stockholm message, etc., the Defendant can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant continuously made sexual contact to runaway juveniles, and in light of the content of the instant crime, which committed the act of purchasing DNA, which is merely 13 years old in return for providing convenience, such as accommodation, and the risk of recidivism, the need for attachment of electronic device is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the defendant's request for attachment order, is erroneous as to the risk of recidivism in the attachment order.