Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that there was an indecent act against the victim of mistake of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, five years of publication, five years of electronic device attachment order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the argument for misunderstanding of facts in the part of the defendant's case, the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") can fully recognize the fact that the victim committed an indecent act as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the defendant's assertion contrary to this

(2) Although the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is relatively minor, the degree of indecent act is sufficiently minor. However, even though there is sufficient evidence of conviction against the Defendant, the Defendant’s denial of the crime up to the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant again committed the instant crime even during the repeated crime period, and the records of the instant crime were several times, and all other circumstances constituting the condition for sentencing, including age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered to be too heavy.

B. As long as the defendant filed an appeal against the accused case, the case pertaining to the attachment order shall be deemed to have filed an appeal against the case pertaining to the attachment order pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. However, there is no statement in the grounds of appeal or petition of appeal concerning the appeal by the accused and his/her defense counsel, and there is no reason to reverse this part ex officio

3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless.