Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order shall be dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The part of the defendant's case and the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") were under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case under the condition of "sexual impulse disorder", and they were in the state of mental disorder.

The imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Although there is a special reason to not disclose or notify the personal information to the accused, it is improper that the court below ordered the accused to disclose or notify the personal information for three years, despite the fact that the accused will not disclose or notify the personal information.

Although it is difficult to recognize that a defendant has a habitor of a sex crime on the part of the request for attachment order, and furthermore, the risk of recommitting a sex crime is not significant, the court below's order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for three years is unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the claim of mental retardation on the part of the Defendant case, it is recognized that the Defendant received a outpatient treatment due to the symptoms of “a difficult concentration, sexual impulse control disorder, depression, etc.” from March 24, 2014 to April 14, 2014, prior to the instant crime, and the fact that the Defendant was in a drinking condition at the time of the instant crime.

However, in light of the aforementioned evidence’s circumstances and method of crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, and the degree and content of statement to the investigation agency immediately after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime in this case.

The defendant's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

With respect to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the extent of exercising the tangible power used by the Defendant for the instant crime is relatively not more severe, and the Defendant reflects his mistake after the instant crime.

However, the Defendant had the same kind before the instant case.