The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight years.

For the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) 1) The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability with severe depression at the time of committing each crime described in paragraphs 2 through 4 of the crime indicated in the judgment of the court below. 2) The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (nine years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is unreasonable because it is too uneasible that the Defendant’s personal information should not be disclosed or notified in the instant case. However, it is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from the disclosure or notification order.

3. The court below's dismissal of a request for an attachment order against a defendant who is likely to recommit a sexual crime is improper.

2. Determination

A. Defendant case 1) There is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant suffered from depression at the time of committing each of the crimes listed in paragraphs (2) through (4) of the criminal facts in the judgment of the Defendant regarding the Defendant’s claim for mental illness (the written investigation of the judgment of the Defendant on the judgment of the lower court stated that the Defendant did not have any mental experience in medical treatment, in addition to the Defendant’s rehabilitation system for one day, and that the head of the National Health Insurance Corporation (the head of the National Health Insurance Corporation) sent a reply on May 26, 2015 according to the order to submit the documents,

In light of the background and method of the instant crime and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., which were duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak the Defendant’s ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes. The Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is without merit. As to the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of exemption from disclosure disclosure notification order, the lower court against the Defendant’s age, occupation, family environment, social relationship, criminal record, and risk of recidivism (no sex crime record).