Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles and a person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) have taken the victim knee by putting the kne in the lower part of the victim’s knee. However, the victim did not engage in the act of kneeing the victim’s chest, and did not intend to force the Defendant to commit an indecent act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. It is improper for the lower court to impose an unfair order to disclose or notify personal information on the Defendant.

(c)

The sentencing of the court below's improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

(d)

It is improper for the court below to impose an attachment order on the defendant who is not found to pose a risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the Defendant also asserted that the above argument is identical to the assertion in the reasoning of appeal. The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, consistently stated in its reasoning, on the grounds that the victim was seated by the investigative agency, the circumstances leading up to knee of the Defendant, the details and degree of the records used by the Defendant, and the response of the father who was seated next to the victim at the time, etc., and that the contents are inconsistent with other evidence, such as video taken from CCTV inside the hospital, video taken up in the 112 report handling case, and the victim’s father E’s statement, and thus, it is difficult to see that the victim’s statement was false solely on the ground that the victim’s statement about the victim’s chest was different from the victim’s E’s father, who was next to the time when the victim’s statement was made. Accordingly, the victim’s statement does not appear to have any other circumstance to open the victim’s statement.