Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the attachment order is excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant.

2. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable on the gist of the grounds of appeal.

3. It is recognized that the defendant's mistake is divided, and the victim C and G do not want the punishment of the defendant.

However, even though the defendant must protect and rear the victim E as a relative of the victim E, the defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim E who is a juvenile at least twice through authority as a relative, and committed physical abuse against the victim C, E, or G, which is a child, or detrimental to the physical health and development of the body, and committed an act of assault or intimidation with dangerous articles carried by the police officers visiting the defendant's house in relation to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against the Victims E (indecent act by blood), it is not good to commit the crime of obstructing the police officer's legitimate execution of duties. The crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (involuntary indecent act by blood) was committed against the victim E, and the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and result of the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, considering the conditions of the punishment of the crime of this case as stated in the oral proceedings after the crime.