A. Although the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim D, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The Defendant’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) declared by the lower court on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The court below rendered a conviction on the defendant's case and a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's request with respect to the case for which the attachment order is requested, and there is no benefit in appeal with respect to the case for which the attachment order is requested, since only the defendant appealed.

Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, a legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 2011; 201Do200, Aug. 25, 201). Therefore, the part regarding a request for attachment order against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of trial by the court of the trial.

3. Determination

A. 1) The lower court also asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above argument in detail by stating in the “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the written judgment, and comparing the judgment of the lower court with the evidential materials, the Defendant D (hereinafter referred to as “victim”).

In addition, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the court below, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) At the time of the case, the victim shall be the new wall of the defendant.