All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years and six months.

80 hours against the defendant.

1. The first instance court rendered a judgment of conviction against the part of the case of the Defendant, which ordered the protective observation regarding the part regarding the claim for protective observation order, and rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s claim regarding the part regarding the claim for protective observation order, and on which only the Defendant and the requester for protective observation order (hereinafter “Defendant”) appealed against the part regarding the case of the Defendant and the part regarding the claim for protective observation order premised on the conviction judgment of the Defendant.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc., the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for attachment order among the judgment of the court of first instance is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court. As such, the part concerning the case of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the claim for attachment order and the part concerning the claim for protection observation order and the judgment of the court of second instance appealed are

2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant

A. A summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The punishment imposed by each court below (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for five years, completion of sexual assault treatment programs for 80 hours, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2) In a case where the Supreme Court arbitrarily withdraws and uses the money deposited by mistake in a deposit account (hereinafter “the case of erroneous remittance”) with respect to the misunderstanding of the legal principles on prosecutor A (the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court below 2) (1) and embezzlement (the primary charge), the Supreme Court has the status of a custodian under the good faith principle.

In light of the fact that embezzlement is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891, Dec. 9, 2010). In the instant case, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the money transferred to the Defendant’s account and the H’s account managed by the Defendant was money owned by another and thus, pursuant to the purport of the Supreme Court’s judgment.