The judgment below

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

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The defendant shall be 40 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment and forty hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) against the Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

On September 1, 2014, the Defendant filed a statement of grounds for appeal with the purport that he/she appears to have asserted “the truth-finding person” in this court as the grounds for appeal, and the Defendant’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s statement submitted to this court on September 5, 2014 asserted only “the grounds for appeal” as the grounds for appeal.

After that, the Defendant and the Defendant’s state appointed defense counsel, on the first trial date of the trial of the court of first instance, submitted by the Defendant for the reason of appeal that the circumstances leading up to the instant crime differing from some facts, and thus, they merely differ from the purport of requesting the sentencing, and do not assert “the fact-finding” as the reason of appeal, and only asserted “the fact-finding” portion as the reason of appeal.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

B) Although there are no special circumstances to prevent disclosure or notification of the Defendant’s personal information, it is unreasonable for the lower court to impose an order to disclose or notify the Defendant’s personal information. 2) Although the Defendant’s part of the case claiming an attachment order is likely to recommit a sexual crime, it is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for attachment order.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. We also examine the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on each of the grounds of unfair sentencing.

The crime of this case is an indecent act committed by the defendant against the victim's will, which is a juvenile, twice in prison, and the nature of the crime is not good. Furthermore, the defendant is soon soon after the victim's parents came to recognize the crime.