The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

The defendant is 200 hours.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment that found the Defendant’s case (excluding the part concerning the primary charges against the victim E as referred to in subparagraph 2-D of the instant facts charged) guilty, cited the prosecutor’s claim regarding the treatment and custody claim, and dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the application for attachment order and the request for treatment order.

On the other hand, since only the defendant and the person who requested the custody order, the person who requested the order to attach an electronic device, and the person who requested the order to attach an electronic device (hereinafter "defendant") have appealed, there is no benefit in the appeal regarding the case of the request for attachment order and

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders, and Article 8(7) of the Act on Pharmacologic Treatment for Sexual Offenders, the part of the judgment below's request for attachment order and treatment order in the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. The part of the case of the defendant's case and treatment and custody claim is limited to the scope of the judgment of this court.

Meanwhile, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of indecent act by force, which is the primary facts charged against the victim E as referred to in subparagraph 2-D, and convicted the Defendant of the charge of similar rape of the minor, which is the ancillary facts charged (Article 3 of the facts charged in the lower judgment).

In regard to this, only the defendant appealed, while the part of innocence in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is transferred to the appellate court in accordance with the indivisible principle of appeal, that part is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and is de facto relieved from the object of attack and defense, so this court cannot make a decision as to that part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Accordingly, with respect to the part of innocence in the above reasons, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is to be followed and the decision is not to be

2...