In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. In the instant facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (i.e., the victim may anticipate sexual contacts between the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), and thus, it is difficult to apply the legal doctrine on indecent conduct under the Criminal Act as it is difficult to apply, and thus, the crime of indecent conduct at a public concentrated place under Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intimidation of assault and intimidation in the crime of coercion on the charges of this case, which sentenced the Defendant guilty on the charge of indecent act.

2) The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment and 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant in the part of the case against the Defendant is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for an attachment order of an electronic device, even though the Defendant has a risk of recommitting a sexual crime, such as having the same criminal record and three times.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine, the lower court also asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal on this part. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, such as the Defendant’s assent of seven jurors.

B) The lower court’s judgment (i) the crime of indecent act by force of the relevant legal doctrine includes not only cases where the other party commits an indecent act after the other party makes it difficult to resist by means of assault or intimidation but also cases where the body of the person of the act of assault is deemed to be an indecent act. In this case, as long as the assault does not necessarily require that the other party’s intention is at least to suppress and is exercised against the other party’s will, it does not necessarily mean that the assault is against the other party’s will (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do3182, Feb. 28, 1992).