The defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

For the defendant 40 hours.

A. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unfilled and unreasonable.

B. The court below's exemption from disclosure and notification order of personal information to the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter "defendant") is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and incomplete hearing.

C. The court below's dismissal of the request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed to be less that the Defendant’s act committed by force by force on the part of the victim, who is a substitute driver customer, and the Defendant’s act by force on the part of the victim’s body.

The victim could not avoid the defendant's indecent act by compulsion in an enclosed space, which is a vehicle in transit, and the defendant should take a vehicle together with the defendant to his house, and he should fall into uneasiness and fear during his house.

Accordingly, not only the victim could not use his/her substitute driving, but also he/she should receive mental treatment due to mental shock.

Even after the crime of this case was committed, the victim complained of the damage by repeating it at the investigative agency and the court of original instance according to the continued denial of the crime of this case, and the victim sent time to the victim by continuing to be forgotten in the process.

The victim is unable to write down the defendant, and the defendant's strict punishment is sought.

The Defendant, who committed the instant crime, should have committed the instant crime against his wrong behavior, and should have been tryed to rescue the victim and recover from the damage. However, the Defendant alleged that the victim made a false statement not only the investigation agency but also the criminal investigation agency to conceal and reduce the liability for the instant crime, but also the victim’s mental impulse.