The sentence of imprisonment (three years of imprisonment and four years of suspended execution) imposed by the court below on the defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") is unreasonable.

It is improper that the court below dismissed the defendant's request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device despite the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime.

Judgment

The crime of this case as to the part of the defendant's case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, such as the fact that the crime of this case was committed by indecent act three times against the aged victim, and that the defendant does not receive a letter from the injured party.

On the other hand, the degree of indecent act in this case is relatively minor, and there is no criminal record that the defendant has been punished in excess of the same criminal record or fine.

In addition, the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, and circumstances after the crime in this case, all the sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in this case, and the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court's Sentencing Commission [the scope of recommendations] set forth in the category 3 of the sex crimes subject to the age of 13 years (2 years to 6 years), the mitigation area (2 years to 5 years), the mitigation area (2 years to 3 years), the mitigation area (2 years to 13 years), the mitigation area (2 years to 5 years), the mitigation area (2 years to 2 years to 5 years) of the sex crimes subject to the age of 13 (a special mitigation] (3 years to 2 years to 5 years), where the defendant's punishment is weak in light of the general standards for sex crimes subject to the age of 13 [the scope of recommending punishment] and the standard for the suspended execution area (2 years to 6 years to 5 years] of the final indecent acts subject to the age of 13].

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.