In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Part 1 of the case against Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) in light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the sentence imposed by the lower court (seven years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completing sexual assault treatment programs, information disclosure, and 10 years of notification) is too unreasonable.

2) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case by the Prosecutor, the above sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of ten years.

2. Determination

A. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the part of the case against the Defendant, the crime of rape in the instant case was invaded by the Defendant beyond the fence of the house managed by the victim following the Defendant, following the Defendant’s heart at the night, and followed the victim’s blicking.

In addition, he did so.

It is evident that rapes by threatening the victim as referred to in “intimidating the victim, etc., in light of the nature of the crime and the character of the method of the crime, danger, etc., in light of the interview and danger, etc., it is evident that the victim was suffering of considerable fear and sexual humiliation. Nevertheless, the Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim up to the heart. In particular, the Defendant already committed two or more sexual crimes of the same kind, and the crime committed above was committed once again for four years after the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a more than ten-year term due to special robbery, etc., and the fraud of this case constitutes a repeated crime, and there are multiple circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as that the crime of this case constitutes a repeated crime.

On the other hand, all of the crimes of this case, including the part that the defendant had been partly denied in the court below's trial, showed a strawing and anti-constition of his mistake, and the degree of the type used by the defendant in the course of the rape crime of this case is not relatively much serious.