The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for twelve years.

80 hours per the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) have no sexual intercourse with the victim.

B. The judgment of the court below that dismissed the request for an attachment order of the location tracking device despite the risk of recidivism by the prosecutor is improper.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the defendant argued the same purport in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with detailed explanation. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and this part of the defendant's allegation is without merit.

B. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the court below presented the opinion that ① it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant has a sexual crime tendency against many unspecified victims in light of the defendant’s previous record of sexual crimes and the background and attitude of the crime of rape with the instant deadly weapons; ② the defendant’s evaluation of recidivism risk against the defendant falls under the category of “serious” with 8 points as a result of the evaluation of the Korean sexual offender recidivism risk; ③ the person with a mental disorder’s selection scheme (PCL-R); ③ the investigator of the probation office who conducted an investigation prior to the request for an attachment order based on the results of the examination, etc. presented to the defendant the opinion that the risk of recidivism is relatively low; ④ the defendant’s completion of a sexual crime treatment program for 80 hours for the purpose of preventing recidivism with punishment; ⑤ The defendant’s age, occupation and environment, character and conduct of the defendant, the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, etc., and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant again submitted a request for a sexual crime by the prosecutor in the future.

The court below held.