Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. The court below found the defendant's case guilty of violating the Juvenile Protection Act due to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the employment of harmful businesses to juveniles. The court below rejected the prosecutor's request to attach an attachment order on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the defendant and the person against whom the request to attach an attachment order was made (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") have a risk of recommitting a sexual crime with regard to the above charged facts as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and the charged facts as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act, Indecent Act, etc.).

As to this, since the appeal was lodged against only the defendant, the part of the acquittal in the above order was separated and finalized as it is, and the part of the acquittal in the reasoning is deemed to have been exempted from the object of public defense among the parties, even though it was brought to the trial in accordance with the principle of no appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991). This part of the judgment of the court below is in accordance with the theory of innocence (i.e., the part of the judgment of the court below that forms the conclusion is not judged again). The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for attachment order in the judgment of the court below does not have a benefit of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7079, 2010Do41, Aug. 19, 201), notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial shall be convicted of the defendant's case except for the part of the case of attachment order.