Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the defendant's case was found to lack the ability to discern things or make decisions due to symptoms of military register, which cannot suppress sexual impulses at the time of committing the crime (the act of indecent act by compulsion of a structure). 2) A traffic accident was caused by misunderstanding of facts (the act of fraud) or driving on a stroke, and there was no intentional accident in collusion with E and F for receiving insurance money.

3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (in 5 years of imprisonment and 7 years of disclosure and notification of information) is too unreasonable. B. The lower court’s part on the claim for attachment order is the Defendant and the respondent for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

It is unreasonable to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device for 10 years.

Defendant

In addition, although a defense counsel did not explicitly state the grounds for appeal regarding the part on which the request for attachment order was made, the lower court’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is cited as above.

2. Determination

A. As to the claim of mental or physical disability, the application of the Korean sex offender risk assessment level (K-SORAS) to the defendant in a prior investigation by the probation office, the risk of recidivism is 15 points in the area of "the upper" as the result of the application of the Korean sex offender risk assessment level (K-SORAS). The defendant is found to have been punished for sex offenses, but it does not seem to have reached a weak state of ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to military symptoms that cannot restrain sexual impulse

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the argument of misunderstanding of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement in detail. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, and thus, it does not accept the allegation

C. Unreasonable sentencing.