In addition, the appeal filed by the person who requested the medical care and custody is dismissed.

A. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendant case is too unreasonable.

B. As to the case of a medical care and custody application, the Defendant and the person who filed a medical care and custody application (hereinafter “Defendant”) provided an environment for voluntary treatment, and there is no risk of re-offending in light of the intent of medical treatment and guidance to prevent re-offending.

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable for the court below to order custody for the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse, among the crimes of this case, among the crimes of this case regarding the defendant's case, is limited to the victim who is a juvenile, and it appears that the victim was suffering from considerable mental impulses. Each of the crimes of this case is a crime of public performance, obscenity, etc. in a public place continuously used by many and unspecified persons, causing considerable inconvenience and apprehensions to the general public using public in a public place, etc.

The fact that the defendant has recognized his mistake and is in depth divided, and that the defendant has a mental disorder of early illness, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above points and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the result of the application of sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. As to the part of the claim for the medical care and custody, the lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, including a written expert opinion prepared by the Medical Care and Custody Center (i.e.,, the Defendant received mental and medical treatment at least 20 times since around 25 years of age, etc. due to his/her assistance, and (ii) the Defendant showed an excessive and pulmonary accident, and did not have awareness of his/her own illness while having his/her status changed.