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

A. The lower court’s sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) to attach an electronic tracking device.

2. Determination

A. As to the part of the defendant's case, the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects it, and the fact that the crime of this case occurred around 2001 and should consider the equality with the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time as the crime of causing rape and bodily harm resulting from rape.

However, in full view of the fact that the crime of this case was committed by two boys aged juveniles by rape in sequence at the same place, and each boys suffered from the marc fever, and that it is obvious that the victims suffered mental and physical pain is very high, and the responsibility for the crime is serious and the nature of the crime is not good and all other sentencing conditions against the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable to the extent that the sentencing of the defendant is reversed.

B. As to the part regarding the attachment order case, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant was likely to recommit a sexual assault crime’s habit and a sexual assault crime.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with records, the lower court’s fact-finding and judgment are justified.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.