Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, which is the legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982). Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for attachment order against the Defendant was excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, two years of community service order, 120 hours of community service order, and 80 hours of attendance order of sexual assault therapy) is too unreasonable.

3. The following circumstances are the circumstances: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by making a confession of all the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a contingent manner; (c) the degree of the indecent act was relatively minor and the circumstances that may be considered in the process and method of the instant crime are observed; (d) the victim agreed with the Defendant in a relatively minor manner and did not want to punish the Defendant; (c) the Defendant is under mental treatment due to his or her personality disorder that is currently unknown; and (d) the Defendant’s mother is receiving education to prevent the same day as the instant crime, and (e) the Defendant’s mother wanted to take care of the Defendant, and thus, he or she has a social relationship with the Defendant, which is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, however, the crime of this case is likely to be socially criticized because it is an indecent act against the juvenile by approaching the defendant's response to the questionnaire survey.

In this case, sexual humiliation and mental health that the victim would suffer from the crime of this case.