The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court below rendered a judgment to dismiss the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the case of the defendant and the part of the case of the case of the attachment order, and the only defendant appealed. Thus, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the case of the attachment order claim.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, 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. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of

The summary of the grounds for appeal in light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment imposed by the court below (a punishment of imprisonment for three years, suspension of execution for four years, community service for 120 hours, and lecture for sexual assault treatment for 80 hours) is too unreasonable and unfair (a defendant physical contact to part of the victims on the grounds of appeal, but this is limited to life guidance for guiding students to receive education necessary to teach sports classes or to encourage students to participate significantly in classes, so there was no intention to commit an indecent act, and for some victims there was no intention to commit an indecent act, or there was no buckbbbbbbbbs, or sound attendance as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below. However, although the defendant withdrawn from the first trial date of the court of first instance to the purport that there was no misunderstanding of facts at the trial date of the court of first instance, and there was no error in the misapprehension of punishment on the grounds of appeal. The allegation of the above facts cannot be legitimate grounds for appeal and ex officio examination of the facts alleged by the defendant.

Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, we do not seem to have seen. Examining the sentencing conditions in the instant case, the fact that the Defendant was in the first instance and appears to have committed all the instant crimes, and that both the victims and the victims have agreed.