Defendant

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

1. The lower court dismissed the prosecution regarding intimidation among the Defendant’s case, and found the remainder of the Defendant case guilty and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. The Prosecutor dismissed the case claiming an attachment order. The guilty part among the Defendant case and the case claiming an attachment order, and the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed an appeal as to the convicted part among the Defendant case.

Accordingly, since the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is separated and confirmed by the way of appeal period, the judgment of this court is limited to the conviction part of the defendant's case and the attachment order request part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (quasi-indecent act in relation to relatives) although the defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victims of each of the instant crimes, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The defendant of an unreasonable sentencing (a two-year imprisonment and 40 hours in completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor is too unreasonable.

3) It is unreasonable that the lower court did not impose an order to disclose or notify personal information on the Defendant, even though there are no special circumstances to prevent the Defendant from disclosing or notifying the disclosure or notification of personal information. (B) The part of the request for attachment order (the lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for attachment order, despite the risk of recommitting a sexual crime, is unreasonable)

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is consistent with the following: (i) the victims have consistently stated their actions at the time of the commission of the crime, the current situation at the time, and the facts before and after the commission of the crime.