Defendant

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

1. The lower court rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the case of the Defendant, and rendered a judgment ordering the attachment of a location tracking device on the part of the case for which the attachment order was requested.

Therefore, the part of the case in which the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) have the interest in filing an appeal as to the part of the case in which the lower court’s request for attachment order was filed, and the part of the case in which the Defendant appealed is also subject to the scope of the judgment of the lower court pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Electronic Monitoring Act.

However, the Defendant asserts the part of the judgment below regarding the Defendant’s case through a written reasoning for appeal, and does not expressly indicate his/her intention to claim the part regarding the case regarding the attachment order claim of the judgment below, and there is no circumstance to deem that the attachment order issued by the judgment below is unfair. Thus, the Defendant’s examination of the part regarding the Defendant’s case

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (five-year imprisonment, etc.) is unreasonable.

Although the Defendant stated in the first trial date that “the mental or physical loss or mental weakness” was alleged on the grounds of appeal filed by the Defendant himself on the grounds of appeal, the Defendant explicitly withdrawn his claim for mental or physical weakness at the time of the first trial of the first instance. However, at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant stated that the sentencing was based on the lack of decentralization.

3. The judgment below held that the crime of this case was committed by an adult defendant, who committed rape, and the victim suffered serious mental or physical shock and pain, and the defendant was convicted of the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (voluntary indecent act) and committed again the crime of this case even though he was under suspension of execution, and the defendant was not able to receive suspicion from the victim.