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. The judgment of the defendant is recognized that the defendant is divided into his mistake, that the defendant has no criminal record of the same kind, and that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim.

However, the crime of this case was committed by a minor under the age of 13 or a juvenile who is a child by force on several occasions, even though the defendant must protect and rear the victim as a relative of the victim, by using authority as a relative to the victim, and by committing physical abuse that may injure the body of the victim, or injure the physical health and development of the body, etc., and thus, the nature of the crime is very heavy, is highly likely to be subject to social and moral criticism, and the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, with the mental suffering and suffering that are difficult to cure the victim, and other conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstance after the crime, etc., are considered, and thus, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.