In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

The Defendant alleged misconception of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the part of the Defendant’s case and the part of the Defendant’s arms in the bus boarding with the victim. However, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim, such as influoring the part of the Defendant’s arms after the Defendant’s intention to commit an indecent act on the part of the victim, with the intent to commit an indecent act, as in the original judgment.

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant, who claimed mental disorder, was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability, which lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, under the influence of mental illness or alcohol.

In light of the degree of the indecent act in this case’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In light of the background leading up to the indecent act in this case, it is too excessive to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years, even if it is not so, it is too excessive to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years.

Judgment

The following circumstances revealed by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, namely, ① the victim has consistently stated the circumstances before and after the crime of this case and the situation at the time of the crime, etc., and the victim cannot find any contradictory or unreasonable parts in his statement, and thus, credibility in his statement is satisfied; ② The CCTV contents at the time of the crime of this case are also consistent with this (Evidence No. 48-49). ② On the contrary, the Defendant denies the crime of this case at an investigative agency and the court below (No. 49 of the trial record, No. 32,106 of the evidence record). However, the Defendant did not explain the grounds or circumstances that re-convened the statement at the court below.