The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendant’s motion to attach the instant attachment order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. There is no misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “defendant”) that the victim was fryed in order to steals mobile phone equipment from the earth excavation on the third floor of the soup.

B. The lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment and five years of disclosure of information) is too unreasonable.

C. The Defendant does not commit an indecent act on the part of the case where the attachment order is requested shall be dismissed.

2. The facts charged in this case and facts constituting a ground for requesting an attachment order;

A. On February 12, 2012, at around 01:33, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in a state of failing to resist, by walking up up the 3rd floor of the “D” building located in Gwangju Northern-gu, and walking up up to the breast side of the victim E (the age of 7) who locked up by making soup. The Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in a state of failing to resist.

B. On November 17, 2005, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year and six months for violating the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims thereof (a minor, rape, etc. under thirteen years of age), and completed the execution of the sentence on November 8, 2006.

As above, the Defendant committed a sexual crime against a minor under the age of 19, as described in the facts charged, within 10 years after having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for committing a sexual crime, and committed a sexual crime on two or more occasions, and is likely to recommit a sexual crime.

3. Determination of the accused case

A. The victim’s mother, witness G’s legal court and the police’s statements, and the victim’s police’s statements as evidence that seem to correspond to the facts charged of the instant case. We examine whether the facts charged of the instant case can be acknowledged based on the evidence.

B. As to the statements made by the victim F, F in the original judgment and the police.