The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

A. The Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) by mistake of facts, and the Defendant committed a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (for profit-making inducement, etc.), so that they can be sent out at their home upon request by the victim F and G. As such, there is no injury caused to the victims.

B) The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, did not commit indecent act by force against the victim F by force, on the part of the victim F, using the victim F’s defective condition, such as camera, and the Defendant taken the G’s negative part upon the F’s request. However, the Defendant did not have taken the F’s negative part.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair. 3) The Defendant did not commit the crime as indicated in the judgment, and even if the Defendant was found guilty, it is unreasonable for the lower court to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device because it did not pose a risk of repeating a crime, and the period is too too long.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there was no evidence to acknowledge each of the facts charged, on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge this part of the charges, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts. A) The Defendant’s act of inserting sex into the victim D, which was consistently believed that all of the physical contact acts prior to the act of inserting sex was a refund of the term treatment. The Defendant’s act of inserting sex was believed to have been a suspension of sexual intercourse. The Defendant’s act of inserting sex was believed to have been an act prior to the inserting sex, which was believed to have been an act prior to the inserting sex instrument, was believed to have been an act of the Defendant’s act of inserting sex in the form of a medical treatment, and subsequently, was committed as an act of making sex inserting into the medical treatment.