The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant) is too unreasonable that the punishment of the court below (the three years of imprisonment, the suspension of execution four years, the 80 hours of the sexual assault treatment course, the disclosure and notification four years) is too unreasonable;

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime, and the Defendant agreed to have a sex offense with the victim; (b) the Defendant did not have any record of sexual crime; and (c) the Defendant did not have good health status due to

Meanwhile, the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim who was only the second grade of high school, takes the chest into home, brupts the chest, puts the chest into a flag, and flag and flag, and attempted to rape the victim. Furthermore, the crime of this case is more severe in light of the victim's age, criminal method and content, etc., and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental shock as the case in this case.

When taking into account the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

No special circumstance is deemed to exist not to issue an order for disclosure or notification.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, the applicable provisions of Article 38(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same) of the lower judgment’s application of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse are erroneouss in the scope of Article 38(1) of the former Act, and the term “order of Notification” is a clerical error in the “Article 38-2(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse,” and the term “