In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

A. The Defendant case (1) misunderstanding of facts (1) and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are only sleep in the victim E’s side on January 28, 2014 when making soup through Drup on January 28, 2014, and there is no fact that the above victim’s her block, as stated in the judgment of the court below, is met.

② On February 14, 2014, where the Defendant made soup a soup sexual contact with the victim F as stated in the holding of the lower court, the Defendant committed an act by misunderstanding the said victim as his/her female-child tool.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of quasi-indecent act.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device although the defendant in the attachment order case does not pose a risk of again preventing sexual crimes.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant case (1) the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below as to the assertion of mistake of facts.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds that the defendant could have committed an indecent act against the victims by taking advantage of the victims' mental or physical condition or their failure to resist, as stated in the facts of the crime, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment due to misconception of facts.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In other words, G at the time of the instant case’s quasi-indecent act against the victim E is merely written in the written statement prepared by the police on the day of the instant case that “the Defendant’s hand was acting towards the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her