The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The request for the observation order of this case is dismissed in the judgment of the court below.

“....”

The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's claim regarding the part of the case against which the defendant was found guilty and the part of the case for which the order to observe the protection was requested, and there is no benefit of appeal as to the part for which the order to observe the protection was requested.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 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 protection observation 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 defendant

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the sentence imposed by the court below (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the following are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime when committing the instant crime; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner; (c) the victim did not want to punish the Defendant; (d) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment in Korea; (c) the Defendant appears to have been living in a remote country while remitting a considerable portion of the revenues to the hospital treatment expenses of the parent; and (d) the Defendant appears to have been able to take compulsory departure measures regardless of the amount of fine, in the case of sexual crimes, regardless of the amount of fine.

Meanwhile, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant’s her tam, who is a workplace member, committed an indecent act by force against the chest of the victim four times, and the type of indecent act committed by the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s act of making a hole on the victim’s chest, etc., is less than the degree of indecent act committed by the Defendant.

It can not be seen, and in light of the contents of the crime and relationship with the victim, the crime is not good, and the circumstances are very heavy.