Defendant

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

Of the judgment of the court below, the term "defendant" is against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the Defendant’s case: (i) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles; (ii) Defendant and the person subject to a request for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have a sexual relationship with the victim B; (iii) there was no fact that there was a sexual intercourse with the victim B; and (iv) it was impossible to engage in sexual intercourse at the time because it did not drink due to the personality, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B) The fact that the Defendant borrowed 4 million won from the victim E is recognized as the fraud (the first instance trial case 2019Gohap100). However, the Defendant was merely unable to repay the money because it does not contact with the said victim, and the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud. Nevertheless, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in determining the guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) The Defendant was in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder at the time of each of the instant crimes.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (4 years of imprisonment for rape, and 2 million won for the crime of fraud in its holding) is too unreasonable. 4) Although there are special circumstances under which disclosure, notification, and employment restriction order should not be disclosed or notified to the public or employment restriction order, the lower court ordering the Defendant to disclose, notify, and restrict employment of personal information.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years, although the Defendant did not pose a risk of recommitting a sexual crime.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the lower court: (a) the Defendant was included in the victim B (hereinafter “1 rape”).