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

2. The lower court’s sentence (12 years of imprisonment and 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

3. It is recognized that the Defendant did not have any record of crime prior to the instant case, and the circumstances against which the Defendant was aware of the instant crime, etc.

However, the Defendant committed sexual assault over several years against the victims, who were living together with the Defendant C and D so that the victims can grow physically and mentally, and who were under age, instead of being able to protect them so that they could grow physically and mentally, by using their distorted sexual desire as a target for resolving their distorted sexual desire. In addition, the Defendant committed sexual assault against the victims E by the victims of sexual assault by the victims C.

As such, each of the crimes of this case is not very good in light of the relationship between the defendant and the victims, the age of the victims, the background, method, frequency, and reflectability.

Each of the crimes of this case seems to have a negative effect on the victims to form sexual identity and values as well as to have suffered a considerable sense of sexual humiliation and mental suffering.

The defendant did not receive a letter from the victims up to the time of the trial.

The age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, means and result of the crime of the defendant;