The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court below rendered a judgment to dismiss the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the case of the defendant and the part of the case of the case of the attachment order, and the only defendant appealed. Thus, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the case of the attachment order claim.

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

misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to indecent act by force based on the summary of the grounds for appeal, and recognizing the fact that the defendant invadedd the residence of the victim D and assaulted the victim F as stated in the judgment of the court below. However, the defendant was aware of the defendant's intention to commit an indecent act by force and did not intend to commit an indecent act by force.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of a forced indecent act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether it constitutes the elements of a forced indecent act.

The defendant was suffering from ordinary early illness, and the mental and physical weak state was suffering from alcohol at the time of committing each of the crimes in this case.

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the punishment imposed by the court below (the imprisonment of five years, the completion of sexual assault treatment programs with 120 hours, and the disclosure and notification of personal information between five years) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts as to the indecent act by compulsion of quasi-performance, the Defendant is not able to resist because the Defendant, upon intrusion upon another person’s residence and referring to the victim of the pertinent item E (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) was either omitted a specific name nor “the victim.”