Notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the lower judgment’s request for attachment order does not have the benefit of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7079, 2010Do41, Aug. 19, 2010). As such, the part of the lower judgment’s request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial shall be limited to the part of the defendant's case except for the part of the request for attachment order among the judgment below (the request for attachment order shall not be stated in the prosecutor's column).

A. Although there was no fact that the defendant collected the victim's injury at the time of the crime of mistake of facts, the court below also found the defendant guilty. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below concerning the determination of facts, legal principles, evidence law, and judgment criteria for the credibility of statements by the person claiming sexual assault victims, ① the age of 9 years in which the victim is sufficiently able to express his opinion, and the statement is also a specific content that is not possible to know if the victim did not directly experience, ② the victim’s motive or reason for gathering the defendant can be acknowledged as a indecent act by inserting the victim’s injury as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. Thus, the court below’s fact-finding and judgment (the second part of the judgment of the court below) cannot be deemed to be erroneous.

Therefore, the defendant.