The judgment below

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

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request with respect to the case of the accused case claiming the attachment order when declared a guilty verdict, and the defendant appealed only against this, and thus, there is no benefit of appeal with respect to the case claiming the attachment order.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders, 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 defendant case constitutes the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment of the Defendant did not seem to have committed an indecent act against female juveniles by force without considering the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine due to an indecent act by force, and cannot be said to have committed an indecent act against the victim by force, and there is little possibility of criticism by forcing the victim to be relieved of punishment.

In addition, it is not easy to see that the victim suffered a lot of mental shock and pain due to the above crime.

These points are considered disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant confessions and reflects all of the crimes in this case, the defendant appears to have committed the above crimes in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner, the degree of indecent act by compulsion cannot be said to be large, and the fact that the defendant agreed smoothly with the victim during the trial.

Considering the above grounds for sentencing and other circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relations, environment, circumstances surrounding and degree of crime, and the scope of recommended sentences determined by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee (one month to one year and six months), the lower court’s punishment is somewhat inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.