In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The lower court’s sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, and five years of disclosure and notification) of the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (1) the lower court’s sentencing on the part of the Defendant case is too unfasible and unreasonable.

(2) The lower judgment dismissing the Defendant’s request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device even if the risk of recidivism against sexual assault crimes in the part of the attachment order case is recognized.

2. Determination

A. As to the part of the defendant's case, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant misunderstanding the defendant as a taxi, carrying the victim's human body on his own car into a drone place, photographing the victim's resistance with his cell phone, rapeing the victim's movement, and resulting in the victim's marction during the course of rape. Thus, in light of the circumstances of the crime, method of crime, danger, etc., the crime is not very good, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental suffering due to the crime of this case, it is inevitable to punish the defendant with severe punishment.

However, in full view of the factors of sentencing favorable to the defendant and other factors of sentencing that are shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against the victim, that the defendant agreed with the victim, that the defendant has no power to commit a crime exceeding the fine, that there is no significant weight in the victim's injury caused by the crime of this case, that the social relation of the defendant is obvious, and that the defendant's age and character are obvious, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant is deemed appropriate, and it is not deemed unfair

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

(b) Article 5 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders with respect to the part of an attachment order case.