Defendant

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had mental or physical loss or mental weakness at the time of committing the crime resulting from rape in the instant case.

The punishment of the court below (a four years of imprisonment, a four-year order to disclose or notify personal information, and an order to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years in which the matters to be observed are imposed) is too unreasonable.

In light of all the circumstances, it is not necessary to impose the location tracking electronic device attachment order and matters to be observed on the person who requested the attachment order, and there is no risk of recidivism.

2. In light of the defendant's main quantity, the background of the crime, the means and method of the crime, the circumstances, etc. shown in the judgment and the record, the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to move things due to mental illness or drinking, and do not have or lacks the ability to make decisions.

The decision is judged.

In full view of the facts constituting the conditions for the sentencing and the sentencing guidelines expressed in the course of the sentencing hearing of the lower court, the lower court’s sentencing judgment that deemed the nature of the instant crime, the victim’s suffering and injury therefrom, the Defendant’s age, and the criminal records as the primary sentencing factors exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

It can not be assessed, and there is no circumstance or material that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below in the course of the deliberation of the sentencing of the party.

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged the risk of recidivism and requested the attachment order for ten years, and imposed matters to be observed. In light of relevant evidence, pleadings, legal principles, etc., the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, etc.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the requester for the attachment order is dismissed (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 364(4) of the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders Act, and Article 35 of the Electronic Monitoring Act).