The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court below's scope of adjudication was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's request with respect to a case prosecuted against the defendant in the judgment of conviction, and the defendant appealed only against the defendant. Accordingly, there is no benefit of appeal with respect to the request for attachment order.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the part of the judgment below on the defendant case belongs to the scope of the judgment of this court.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death and Injury caused by Dangerous Driving) and the Road Traffic Act in the part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes"). At the time, the damaged vehicle did not seem to be a black vehicle, and the victim F did not take measures to avoid facing the defendant's body at the scene of the accident and the police station, even though there is no error in the body of the defendant, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this part of the charges.

The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges solely based on the victim’s statement without credibility despite the fact that the victim C’s chest was not true, as stated in this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The Defendant alleged mental disorder was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant indecent act by compulsion, and was in the state of mental disorder or mental disability.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on the argument of unfair sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Judgment on misunderstanding of facts.