A. The part of the defendant's case (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 2 years of suspended execution) sentenced by the court below to the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") (hereinafter "defendant") is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

B. The judgment of the court below that dismissed the request for attachment order even though it is necessary to attach an electronic tracking device to the defendant when considering the nature of the crime of this case, the records of the same crime, and the risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. The nature of the crime is very poor in light of the fact that the defendant, even though he had a record of punishment for the same kind of crime, again led to the crime of this case, and the first indecent act by force of the victim who was sexually forced, etc.

In addition, the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim.

However, the degree of indecent act by compulsion by the defendant is relatively not more severe, and the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth.

In addition, the defendant has no criminal records of imprisonment with prison labor, and the criminal records of the same crime are more than twice, but there are no records of the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor or more.

In addition, in a 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, the appellate court is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the overall circumstances that include the Defendant’s age, family relation, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the appellate court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. (1) The lower court’s judgment on the ground that the Defendant’s claim for attachment order was justifiable.