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

A. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The period of the lower court’s improper attachment order is too unfair.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case’s unfair sentencing is deemed to have committed sexual intercourse and indecent act by taking advantage of the victim’s intellectual and cerebral disability, who is a friendly son and the victim requesting an order to attach an order (hereinafter “the defendant”), and the nature of the crime is very poor and highly likely to be criticized. The period of the crime is extended from January 201 to September 201, and the number of times of the crime is reached several times. In full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, including Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., even if the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment before and after the instant case, and even if the victim wanted the Defendant’s wife at the trial, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant, who was in violation of an attachment order, committed sexual intercourse and indecent act against a victim who is a married couple for a long time from January 201 to September 201; (b) the risk assessment of recidivism by Korean sex offenders (KS-SAS) as a result of the application of the Korean evaluation of recidivism risk; (c) the need to protect the victim; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, details and details of the offense; and (e) awareness and attitude of the Defendant’s sex, the period of attachment order issued by the lower court is too excessive and unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(b).