Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unreasonable for the court below to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device, although the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not pose a risk of recommitting a sexual crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (15 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination as to the wrongful assertion on the attachment order, i.e., (i) the Defendant was serving in prison four years of imprisonment with prison labor for robbery, injury, etc. on December 13, 2012 and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on or around February 1, 2015; (ii) the Defendant committed the instant sexual crime on or before the completion of the execution of the said sentence on January 28, 2017; (iii) the Defendant ordered the attachment of the instant sexual crime at a very pleological and scientific level; (iv) the Defendant’s location and risk assessment device at the level of recidivism risk at the level of 14 points; and (iv) the Defendant’s location and risk assessment device at the level of adult frequency or the risk assessment device at the level as to the instant sexual offender’s location and risk of recidivism, based on comprehensive consideration of the following circumstances:

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against all of the instant crimes, which have been recognized.