The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge of violating the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims, etc. (Indecent Act by compulsion in relation to relatives), among the facts charged in the part of the Defendant case, and found the Defendant guilty on the remaining part of the lower judgment. As such, the acquittal portion was determined separately by the final appeal period.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial shall be limited to the remaining conviction except the acquittal portion among the judgment below.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part on which the request for attachment order was filed, and only the Defendant appealed therefrom, thus there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part on which the request for attachment order was filed.

Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, who are the legal fiction of appeal, is not applicable (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2823, 82 reductionDo611, Jan. 18, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7079, Aug. 19, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do41, Aug. 19, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 201Do7079, Feb. 41, 2010).

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles - Of the facts charged in each part of the charges, the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts by force in relation to relatives) on the basis of the victim’s statement without credibility is based on the victim’s statement that does not properly specify the date and time of the crime, and thus cannot be deemed to constitute a public prosecution that contains a specific criminal fact.

Therefore, among the facts charged in this part, the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent act by force in relation to relatives) on the date and unsatisfying around 2010 is null and void since the procedure of prosecution

B. The Defendant is identical to each of the facts charged.