The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case against which the defendant was found guilty and the part of the case for which the request for attachment order was filed, and there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part for which the request for attachment order was filed.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not engage in any act such as the entry in the facts charged, and there was only some physical contact as in the accident.

B. Legal reasoning: (a) there was an act identical to the facts charged.

Even if such act does not reach the degree of infringing the victim's sexual freedom, it does not constitute a forced indecent act.

(c)

The sentence of the court below (the 8 months of imprisonment and the 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the illegal defendant's act did not reach the forced indecent act, but the inappropriate act that can constitute sexual harassment is recognized and reflected, and that the defendant agreed with the victim and there is no particular criminal conviction.

3. Determination

A. On January 12, 2016, the victim submitted a written complaint against the Defendant on the grounds that he/she was investigated on two occasions on January 14, 2016 and February 1, 2016, the victim made a detailed and detailed statement on his/her relationship with the Defendant, the details and form of the crime, the objective situation at the time of damage, the Defendant’s speech and behavior, the victim’s attitude or subjective appraisal, and the circumstances after the crime.

The victim's statement is not specifically contradictory or inconsistent with the rule of experience. Therefore, the victim is suffering from the victim's statement.