In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”), the scope of this court’s trial is limited to the part of the case of the defendant and the case of the request for attachment order, and the part of the request for probation order is excluded.

2. The sentencing of the lower court is too inappropriate.

3. Determination

A. It is recognized that the part of the defendant's case is recognized that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and repents and reflects his mistake, and that the defendant suffered alcohol ozone, etc. at the time of the crime of this case and appears to have been under the influence of alcohol (However, this does not seem to have weak ability to discern things or make decisions).

However, the crime of this case committed by the defendant by force using the mental condition of the victim, which was invaded by the victim's body of female use, which is a place used by the public for sexual purposes, and is not good in its nature. The defendant committed the crime of this case again with attaching "location tracking electronic device" during the repeated crime period even though he/she was sentenced several times of punishment due to the same crime, even though he/she was sentenced to several times of punishment, and again committed the crime of this case by attaching "location tracking electronic device" during the repeated crime period. The victim was aware of considerable mental suffering and pain due to the crime of this case, and the defendant