Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not exercise any particular force other than the indecent act against the victim E, and the victim E did not refuse or request rescue despite being aware of the fact that the Defendant was sexual intercourse, and the place where the case occurred is a soup.

Therefore, the defendant's act against E shall be subject to the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act at Public Place) rather than the crime of indecent act by compulsion under the Criminal Act, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby applying the crime

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The Defendant’s failure to attach an attachment order is too harsh in that there is no risk of recidivism, and it is too harsh in that the Defendant’s livelihood becomes difficult due to the wearing of an electronic device. Therefore, the lower court’s attachment order is unlawful.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles regarding indecent act by compulsion against the victim E (hereinafter “victim”), the Defendant also asserted that the crime of indecent act by compulsion under the Criminal Act is established in the court below’s appellate brief that “no assault or intimidation exists and thus constitutes the crime of indecent act by compulsion,” among the grounds for appeal in the court below, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the part that it does not constitute the crime of indecent act by compulsion. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment in detail as “the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion” in the written judgment, which is “the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion”. In comparison

In addition, the legal principles as seen below and the court below legitimately adopted and examined them.