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 attachment order issued by the lower court is too unfair.

2. Determination

A. Although the victim of unreasonable sentencing is deemed not to have want to punish the defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the defendant”), the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed on three occasions by the defendant, who is a father, a person with intellectual disability, and a minor victim. The crime of this case seems to have been committed by rapes on three occasions, and the crime of this case seems to have been very poor and to have been committed against the victim, and the victim's big mental impulses. In addition, considering all the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, the court below'

B. In light of the fact that the defendant's improper period of the attachment order was a relative and a victim who is a intellectually disabled person, three times as the object of a sexual crime, the risk of recidivism was 10 points in total as a result of the application of the Korean evaluation of the risk of recidivism, and the risk of recidivism was 14 points in total as a result of the evaluation of the PC-R (PCL-R), and the risk of recidivism was relatively high, since the defendant's character, character, environment, awareness and attitude of sex, and the motive and frequency of the instant crime, etc., it is not recognized that the attachment order period of the court below is too excessive, and thus, the defendant's above assertion is not reasonable.

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.