In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The punishment (nine years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

(2) It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case even if the defendant to dismiss the request for attachment order of this case is found to have the recidivism of sexual crime and the risk of

2. Determination

A. In regard to the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing (the Defendant’s case), the Defendant continued to rape the victim who is a disabled person of Grade II with mental physical disability as his/her father, and neglected to rape the victim, who is his/her child, with the knowledge of rape.

The defendant did not make any effort to recover damage even though the victim suffered a huge physical and mental suffering that is difficult to recover throughout his life.

However, the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and is against his mistake while recognizing the crime of this case.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument, including the circumstances after the crime, and the sentence of the lower court is within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed as being too minor or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

B. Regarding the prosecutor’s rejection of the prosecutor’s request for an attachment order (the attachment order case), the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant is likely to recommit a sexual crime

In comparison with records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is so argued by the prosecutor.