In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The sentence of imprisonment (five years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the instant case reflects his mistake by recognizing all of the instant crimes.

It is difficult to view that the degree of each of the instant indecent acts by compulsion is very serious.

However, even though the Defendant had been sentenced to three times of punishment and two times of order to attach an electronic tracking device due to indecent act by force, the Defendant again committed each of the instant crimes under the condition that the execution of the last imprisonment was completed and the electronic tracking device was attached at approximately one month.

The victims seem to have suffered considerable mental shock due to each of the crimes in this case.

Nevertheless, the victims did not take any measures to recover damage.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant and the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

B. As long as the Defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the prosecuted case, it is deemed that they also filed an appeal against the attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Offenders.

However, the defendant and the prosecutor did not submit legitimate grounds for appeal regarding the attachment order case, and even after examining the judgment of the court below, there is no reason to investigate and reverse this part ex officio.

The defendant is excessive in the period of attachment.