Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent A and the prosecutor of the attachment order shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order to whom the crime was committed (A1) did not err in the misapprehension of the facts or the legal principles [the crime and indecent act committed by a juvenile in the judgment of the court below], and the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) did not assault the victim, and the court below found the victim guilty of all the charges by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence against Defendant A who is unfair in sentencing (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court against the illegal Defendants in sentencing (Defendant B and C: 5 years of suspended sentence, etc.) is too uneasible and unfair.

2) There are extenuating circumstances in which disclosure or notification of personal information may not be disclosed to Defendant A, who is unreasonably exempt from disclosure or notification order.

It is difficult to see that the court below exempted it.

3) The lower court’s dismissal of the request for attachment order against Defendant A, on the ground that there is a risk of re-afusing sexual crimes against Defendant A, is unreasonable.

2. The part of the defendant case

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the point of violence and indecent act by force against juveniles among the judgment below) was not a misunderstanding of the victim’s timber as stated in this part of the facts charged.

B) The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion based on the following circumstances admitted by the evidence and found the Defendant guilty on this part of the charges.

① The victim consistently stated the content of the assault damage from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, and the court of original instance followed the victim’s statement in detail that “the Defendant was deprived of the Defendant’s hand by cutting the Defendant’s hand by cutting the Defendant’s hand at his seat” in the court of original instance.

(2)