The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The scope of Korean courts' trial

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case while dismissing the prosecutor’s request for the attachment order. The Defendant only appealed against the judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request for the attachment order, and there is no room for applying Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders, a legal fiction of the provision of the appeal, and the Electronic Monitoring, etc., inasmuch as there is no benefit in the appeal against the part of the request for the attachment order, (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do283, 82, 82, 611, which held that if the Defendant only appealed the judgment of the first instance court that dismissed the request for the attachment order, the Defendant did not have a benefit in the appeal against the subsequent criminal. Accordingly, the request for the attachment order is not subject to a trial by the Korean court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Mental and physical weakness: The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. misunderstanding of legal principles: The disclosure of Defendant’s personal information should not be disclosed to the public is illegal even if there are special circumstances that the disclosure should not be disclosed.

(c)

Sentencing Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. According to the record of determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant alleged on the ground of appeal that he did not make any statement from an investigative agency to the court of the court below that he would drink alcohol at the time of the instant crime. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

4. Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes shall apply mutatis mutandis to a judgment on unjust assertion of disclosure disclosure order.