Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The person against whom the probation order is requested.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the prosecutor’s request for an attachment order against the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) despite the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes.

2. We also examine the defendant and prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing regarding the grounds for appeal against the accused case.

The crime of this case is committed by force by force of the victim by force by force of the victim, and attempted to put the victim's sexual organ into the victim's mouth and the victim's sexual organ into the victim's mouth, because the defendant's sexual organ was 8 years old who was going to the same church and went into the victim's toilet every week three times a week, and the defendant's sexual organ was franchising with the victim's finger, etc., and attempted to be franchising the victim's sexual organ into the victim's sexual organ, and the crime is very poor in light of the contents of the crime, and the victim's sexual organ was franchising and suffering from considerable mental shock and pain. This is because it seems to have a significant impact on the formation of the victim's sound sexual values, and therefore, it is necessary to punish the defendant more severe

However, there are extenuating circumstances such as the defendant's perception of his mistake and reflects his mistake, the crime of similarity was committed in attempted crimes, the defendant has no record of punishment for sex crimes, and the victim's side does not want punishment for the defendant under the agreement with the victim.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court did not err in its judgment.