Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the application for attachment order to the defendant is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the defendant's case falls under the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is true that the defendant was found guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the victim's statement, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The victim's statement by the defendant as a criminal did not comply with the requirements for the criminal identification procedure. Thus, the victim's statement by the defendant as a criminal did not comply with the requirements for the criminal identification procedure. In addition, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the victim's statement.

3. The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in full view of the circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and examined.

The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the records, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below were examined. The judgment below which recognized the defendant as the criminal did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Defendant.