The prosecutor's appeal on the part of the defendant's case is dismissed.

The judgment below

A request for an attachment order shall be made.

The sentence (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is inappropriate as it is too uneasible.

Although the court below dismissed the defendant's request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device, it is improper for the court below to dismiss the defendant's request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device

Judgment

It is reasonable to respect the part of the defendant's case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court’s failure to do so. In full view of the factors revealed in the instant pleadings, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfeasible so that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

This part of the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit.

As to the part regarding which a request for attachment order was made, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, dismissed the prosecutor’s request for attachment order of an electronic device against the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone is highly probable to injure legal peace by committing a sex crime again in the future.

The risk of recidivism of a sexual crime under Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter referred to as the "Electronic Monitoring Act") means the possibility of recidivism is insufficient only by the possibility of recidivism, and it is highly probable that the person who requested the attachment order will escape the legal peace by committing a sexual crime again in the future.