I would like to say.

Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 2011; 201Do200, Aug. 25, 201); therefore, the part regarding the attachment order case against the Defendant is not subject to second trial. Accordingly, the part regarding the attachment order case against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to issue an order to disclose or notify personal information to the defendant, even though there are special circumstances under which the disclosure or notification order should not be disclosed or notified to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant committed an anti-human act committed several indecent acts to resolve his or her sexual desire, even though the Defendant was obligated to protect and rear the victims of 9 years of age, who are her relatives, by forming a sound sexual sense, sexual values, etc. as women, and by protecting them so that they can grow up as members of the correct society.

The crime is committed by blood relatives or guardians who are unable to resist the victim by making the dominance and control power indefinite, and thus, the possibility of criticism is greater.

In addition, the victim seems to have suffered mental impulses and pain that are difficult to recover through the above crime of the defendant.

(b).