The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

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

. against the Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the Defendant case) The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order is requested (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable, as it is too unreasonable. The lower court’s sentence (four-year imprisonment) was unreasonable.

3 It is unreasonable that the court below ordered the disclosure and notification of information to the defendant in violation of the disclosure disclosure order.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the attachment of a location tracking device in the part of the case requesting attachment order.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant is recognized as having a drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, despite the fact that the defendant was in the state of drinking (the defendant was in the state of drinking even after exemption).

(2) In full view of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, is in a state of lacking the Defendant’s ability to discern things or make decisions with the victim, taking into account the fact that the Defendant is memorying most of the circumstances at the time of the instant crime, and that the Defendant committed an indecent act by the victim, such as putting his hand in his clothes by using the creshs, and drinking part, etc., and that the victim attempted to talk with the victim, as he did not have any particular reason after deducting his hand from the locking, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit, and there was a history of criminal punishment on several occasions before the instant crime, including sexual crimes, which the Defendant had already been punished several times before the instant case, and further, the Defendant committed the instant crime in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes in Busan District Court on June 29, 2012, which was sentenced 4 years of suspension of execution and 5 months thereafter.