In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The Defendant and the requester for the attachment order (1) the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2) The period of attachment of an electronic tracking device for an illegal defendant and a person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) is too unfair.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. Considering the fact that the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime even though he/she had the same criminal record, and that the Defendant did not agree with the victims up to the conviction, strict punishment against the Defendant is necessary.

However, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided, the degree of each indecent act in this case, the age, sexual conduct and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is deemed appropriate and is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

B. In light of the Defendant’s age, occupation and environment, motive and means of the instant crime, risk of repeating a crime, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the opening, etc., the Defendant’s allegation that the attachment period of the location tracking electronic device is too long is unreasonable. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in entirety under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, etc., and it is so decided as per Disposition.