Therefore, since only the prosecutor appealed on the guilty part of the defendant's case and the part concerning the request for attachment order, the dismissed part among the defendant's case was separated and determined by the intention of the appeal period and excluded from the scope of this court's trial.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the conviction part of the judgment of the court below and the case requesting attachment order.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment (a long-term one year of imprisonment and a short-term eight months) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) is deemed unreasonable.

B. In the case of a request for attachment order, the Defendant is deemed to have the risk of recommitting a sexual crime as a person who falls under Article 5(1)3 and 5(1)4 of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “where a person commits a sexual crime on at least two occasions, and is deemed to have committed a sexual crime against a person under the age of 19).

Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case on the grounds that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant pose a risk to recommit

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. Each of the crimes of this case against the assertion of unfair sentencing is committed by the defendant as a prisoner in the prison, who is a juvenile prisoner, in five times against the victim.