Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the claimant for observation order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) when the Defendant and the person who requested to observe an order to protect the victim (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) committed an indecent act against the victim, the victim knew that he/she committed an indecent act against himself/herself, and attempted to go out of it immediately; and (b) the Defendant did not intentionally commit any such act with the intent to arrest the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the charge of confinement of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of sexual assault treatment lectures) is too unreasonable.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the above sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the defendant's request for an order to observe the protection of this case despite the risk of recommitting sexual crimes.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s facts in the part of the instant case, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the Defendant’s act of confinement and intent of confinement.

The victim is lying on the wall that the defendant sits on the bed.

In order to open a door that occurs in the inside and out of the door, the defendant tried to get out of the door, and the defendant was unable to open the door by cutting his arms and blocking the door and expecting the door.