In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order; 1) The lower court’s improper disclosure order is limited to Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

(2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device, even though there is no risk of recommitting a sexual crime.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of eight years is too unlimited and unfair).

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) On February 26, 2014, the Defendant’s defense counsel claimed mistake of facts at the time when the period for submitting the appellate brief, which claimed unfair disclosure notification order, unfair attachment order, and unfair sentencing order, has expired. The Defendant’s defense counsel asserted further facts on the first day of February 26, 2014, and thereafter, the supplementary appellate brief submitted to the effect that “the Defendant recognized the facts charged by mistake as it was impossible for the Defendant to accurately understand the meaning of confession in the lower court, and the Defendant did not clearly confession the facts charged at the investigative agency, and the victim made a false statement at the investigative agency.” The defense counsel’s allegation of mistake of facts is not a legitimate reason for appeal, but it is judged ex officio in a broad manner to guarantee the Defendant’s right to defense. However, the Defendant’s defense counsel’s argument is examined ex officio in relation to the following circumstances, which can be known by evidence, etc. by the Defendant’s defense right, i.e., the Defendant’s defense opportunity where the first offense was known, and the victim was the victim of a middle school on Jun.