In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months for imprisonment, five years for disclosure and notification, five years for employment restriction order, five years for an electronic device attachment order for location tracking device, five years for an electronic device attachment order, etc.) is too unreasonable.

The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) recognized the instant crime and reflects on the determination of the instant case, and the fact that the Defendant visited the psychologic spirit after the instant crime and received medical treatment is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant had the record of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, the sentence and the attachment order of an electronic tracking device for quasi-indecent acts, such as the record of crime records in the judgment of the court below, and the above crimes were committed against the unspecified women who were in a soup and soup, and the fact that the defendant did not receive from the victim is disadvantageous to the defendant

As above, considering comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions stipulated by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and consequence, as well as the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and in addition to the fact that no particular change of circumstances is found in relation to the sentencing conditions after the sentence of the lower judgment, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable to the extent that it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

Where an appeal has been filed against the judgment of the defendant's case which is a specific crime case pursuant to Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders for the judgment on the claim for attachment order, the judgment on the claim for attachment order shall also be deemed to have been filed. However, the grounds for reversal shall not be found even if the grounds for appeal on this part are not indicated and ex officio.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.