A. The part of the defendant's case (e.g., e., e., g., e., e., e.,

B. It is improper for the court below to dismiss the defendant's request for the attachment order of this case despite the risk of repeating sexual crimes to the part of the attachment order case.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s crime of this case as to the part of the Defendant’s case ought to be strictly punished in light of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime against the Defendant’s ageed victims four times by compulsion; (b) the Defendant has an adverse effect on the formation of the victim’s sexual identity; and (c) the Defendant has the ability to punish the Defendant for the same crime.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) the degree of the instant indecent act is relatively weak; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of committing a crime, and the circumstances after committing a crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable because the Defendant’s punishment is too uneasible. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion on

B. Article 9(4)4 of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “When a suspended sentence or suspended execution is rendered with respect to a specific crime case (excluding where an order to attach an electronic device is issued pursuant to Article 28(1)),” which constitutes a ground for dismissing a request for an attachment order, the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case based on the said provision, while sentencing a suspended sentence on the criminal facts of this case.

On the other hand, Article 28 (1) of the Act provides that "the court shall order the person who committed a specific crime to be put on probation while suspending the execution of the sentence."