The judgment of the court below (excluding the part dismissing an application for compensation order) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

(b) the defendant;

The applicant for compensation within the scope of adjudication in this court is unable to file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation order (Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit), and the part of the court below dismissing the application for compensation order by the applicant for compensation was immediately finalized, and the part of rejection of the application for compensation order is excluded from the scope of adjudication in this court

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not memory the crime of this case.

2) The defendant with mental disorder committed the instant crime

Even at the time of dementia, there was no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness such as dementia.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant that was unfair in sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) There are special circumstances in which the disclosure or notification of personal information should not be disclosed to the accused who is not subject to an order for disclosure or exemption from notification order.

It is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the disclosure order or notification order of personal information.

3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for an attachment order against the unjust Defendant to whom the request for an attachment order is filed, although the attachment order is required.

3. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not associate with the crime of this case.

However, according to evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim under 13 years of age as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment regarding the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder, and the lower court, by providing a detailed statement on the judgment.