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 Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was issued and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) cannot be deemed to pose a risk of recommitting a sexual crime, and the attachment period is too too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is a favorable condition to the Defendant, including the fact that the Defendant fully acknowledges his own criminal act and agreed with some victims.

The Defendant raped a female under the influence of alcohol with the victim’s personal body, and maintained an inappropriate relationship with the victim, who is a child or juvenile, by threatening the victim to know it to his/her guardian. As a result, the victims received a considerable mental impulse and sexual humiliation, the Defendant repeatedly committed the same offense against multiple victims, and threatened multiple victims to the effect that he/she will continue to contact with the victim, and that he/she will know it to his/her guardian, and that he/she would continue to contact the victim even after the crime, and that he/she acted immediately before the arrest, as if he/she leaked the victim’s personal information, and did not recover from damage, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, method, and consequence of the crime, various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the result of the application of sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower

B. The lower court held that the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, due to the Defendant’s theft of women’s clothes, etc. in the Incheon District Court in 2004, and the Defendant’s rape or threat of force against the juvenile victim three times, as stated in paragraphs 1 through 3 of the facts constituting the crime in its holding.