In addition, both the appeal by the person requested to attach an attachment order and the appeal by the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) to put an employment restriction for five years against the Defendant’s child and juvenile-related institutions, etc., in so far as the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charges concerning quasi-Robbery of this case on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had an intent to illegally obtain the victim’s mobile phone, such as misconception of facts as to the acquitted portion of the lower judgment, and on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had an intent to illegally obtain the victim’s mobile phone, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2)

3) Although there is no special circumstance that the court below did not issue an order to disclose or notify the personal information of the defendant unfairly exempted from the disclosure notification order, it is improper that the court below did not issue an order to disclose or notify the defendant's information to the public. 4) Although the court below did not confiscate "galthot8" (No. 1, hereinafter "the evidence No. 1,") which constitutes an article provided or intended to be provided for the crime of this case, the court below's failure to confiscate

5. The court below's dismissal of a request to attach an attachment order of this case against the defendant, despite the risk of repeating a sex crime, is improper.

2. Determination

A. On September 20, 2018, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at around 04:24:24, on September 20, 2018, committed sexual intercourse with the victim E (one cell phone of the victim whose conversation between the Defendant and the victim was stored by committing sexual intercourse with the victim; and (b) the Defendant, at around 33 years of age and sexual intercourse with the victim, took the cell phone of the victim whose conversation with the victim was stored with the victim, and then the victim cret the gap between the escape.