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

With respect to the charge of assault on March 7, 2016 and March 20, 2016 among the charges of assault against the defendant, the defendant did not have assaulted the victim on the above date and time.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

The defendant was forced to commit an indecent act, and there was no intention to compel the victim to commit an indecent act, and there was no forced indecent act on the date and time stated in part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged only with the statements of the victims and inmates who are not reliable. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with 1 year and 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the case of the assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles, the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts are included in the pre-examination of facts, and in the case of statements made by the same investigation agency and testimony in the court, they must be believed to be the latter.