The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court rendered a guilty verdict on the part of the case of the Defendant, and dismissed the prosecutor’s request for attachment order and for the protective observation order, and only the Defendant appealed.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order and the request for protective observation order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no benefit in appeal. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the judgment of the court below concerning

The summary of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of personal information disclosure and notification) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Examining the various sentencing conditions of the instant case, there are some favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant appears to reflect the mistake while attempting to commit the crime, and the degree of the tangible power exercised by the Defendant is not much excessive.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant only by 10th women's buckbucks and her ambbbbbbbbbbs that the Defendant sit on the side of the bus, in light of the background of the crime, the interview with the water method, and the age of the victim, etc. The crime of this case is not less vulnerable to the nature of the crime. The victim seems to have caused considerable mental shock and sexual humiliation. Nevertheless, the victim did not receive a letter from the victim. The Defendant was sentenced to suspension of execution and a fine on several occasions, such as the crime of indecent act, and the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc. (obscenity) in the past. In particular, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for forced indecent act on October 20, 2015 and the judgment became final and conclusive, and even after the execution of the last punishment was terminated on October 21, 2016, the crime of this case was again invalidated during the execution period.