The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records of the accused case, the accused and the requester for medical treatment and custody and the requester for attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and the accused asserted either mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing with the content of denying the fact of indecent act by compulsion as the grounds for appeal against the accused case.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of indecent act by compulsion or by misapprehending the legal principles on the erroneousness or omission is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even if ex officio review is conducted, there is no error as alleged in the judgment below.

In addition, the grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant merely state that “the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable,” “the Defendant did not commit a crime that the lower court found guilty,” and “the lower court erred by violating the Constitution, laws, orders, or rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment,” and thus, it cannot be deemed that the legitimate grounds of appeal have been submitted.

Other grounds of appeal by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. As long as the defendant files an appeal against a prosecuted case regarding a medical treatment and custody application case, the appeal is deemed to have been filed regarding the medical treatment and custody application case, however, the petition of appeal does not state the grounds therefor and the appellate brief does not state the grounds for appeal.

3. As to the request for attachment order, the petition of appeal and the ground of appeal submitted by the Defendant are merely stated that “the withdrawal of the attachment order of an electronic device” or “the removal request of an attachment order of an electronic device” is not stated in the specific reasons. Thus, a legitimate ground of appeal regarding the request for attachment order has been submitted.