Defendant

In addition, both appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as misconception of the facts, the court below acquitted the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter the Defendant) on this part of the charges, although it could sufficiently recognize that the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter the Defendant) committed an indecent act by force against D, a juvenile who is a relative of around October 2017, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges. The lower court erred by misapprehending

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for the instant attachment order, even though the Defendant, who was found to have committed a sexual crime on at least two occasions and committed a sexual crime against a person under the age of 19, and was at risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. On October 2017, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, based on the room of D (the age of 13 at that time) located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (U.S.) in the Defendant’s residence in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon around 2017, and (b) the Defendant d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act against D, which is a child-related juvenile.

2) The lower court determined as follows, comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, stated the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant, at the second trial date of the lower court and the investigative agency, stated to the effect that “D was trying to damage the house work,” and that “D’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’ was rejected. In so doing, considering the Defendant’s specific form of act and the family relation between the Defendant and D, the Defendant’s d’s d’s d’s d’