1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant case in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the instant facts charged were guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

In addition, according to the records, the defendant and the requester for the attachment order, and the requester for the protective order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted the mistake of facts with the sentencing unfair on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal, but at the second trial date of the lower court, the court revoked the grounds for appeal for misconception of facts concerning the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Observance of Secrecy).

In such cases, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts concerning the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Observance of Secrecy, etc.) is not a legitimate ground for appeal

In addition, examining the circumstances that led to the instant crime, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, method of commission of the crime, the act of the Defendant before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss at the time of the instant crime.

It is difficult to see that the defendant's ground of appeal that he was physically or mentally deprived at the time of committing the crime of this case is not acceptable.

Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, a final appeal is allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The defendant's person with respect to the case of the request for attachment order;