Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of

2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. In 2001, the judgment of the defendant was made by the defendant's house in order to look at the victims of water and kys as bereaved family members from the time of the death of her her friend, and the victim E was diagnosed as the guardian of the victims and the victim E was diagnosed as the class 2 of intellectual disability, and the victim D was diagnosed as the victim's friend and the victim D did not have any other place where her family members reside, making the victim D who did not reach the age of 14 as the object of sexual desire repeatedly and forced the victim D who did not reach the age of 14 as the object of sexual desire, and the degree of the indecent act is very important.

Furthermore, in the situation where the Defendant was investigating the victim D by committing the crime, the victims found the victim E as a studio from September 2014 where the victim was living at the home of the Defendant from around September 2014, and the victim D was able to have been able to do so, without a forum.

It is clear that the defendant's crime not only is anti-humanism but also has suffered a huge mental shock and pain.

Even when considering only one of the above crimes committed by the defendant, it remains sufficiently clear how the defendant thought and dealt with the victims while living together with the victims, and in fact, it remains true.