성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(절도강간등)등
The judgment below
The part of the case of the attachment order shall be reversed.
The person against whom the attachment order is requested shall track the location for ten years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. The part of the defendant's case is improper because the sentence imposed by the court below to the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter "the defendant") (the disclosure of information for three and five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The judgment of the court below ordering the attachment of an electronic device and matters to be observed although the defendant does not pose a risk of repeating a sexual crime is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and not so.
Even if the attachment period (20 years) is too long, it is unfair.
2. Determination
A. The part of the defendant's case does not have favorable conditions to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts constituting the crime and divided wrong facts, and agreed with the victims.
However, the crime of this case committed by the defendant by intrusion upon the house where a minor is mixed, steals cash, rapes the victim, steals property by intrusion upon the house of another victim at night, and thus the nature of the crime is not good. The defendant again committed the crime of this case even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to night residence intrusion theft on April 8, 2008, and again committed the crime of this case even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of this case. In full view of various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means, consequence, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. The lower court determined that there was no risk of recidivism in the part regarding the claim for an attachment order. (1) The Defendant committed a sexual crime against the victim under the age of 16 in addition to the instant crime, the Defendant committed a sexual crime against the victim under the age of 19 in around 2012, and the Defendant’s risk of recidivism was 11.”