Defendant

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

1. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the original court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original court’s determination because the new materials of sentencing were not submitted in this case.

In addition, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed an indecent act by force against the victim under nine years of age, and was highly mental impulses, such as the Defendant’s commission of an indecent act by force, and the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, and the Defendant had three times of sexual violence cases. In full view of the records and arguments, the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case’s records and arguments, such as the fact that the Defendant and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed an indecent act by force against the victim under nine years of age, and that the victim’s commission of the crime was committed by the Defendant, but the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, and the Defendant had three times of sexual violence cases. However, even if considering

Defendant’s assertion that the sentence of the court below is unreasonable is rejected.

2. As long as the Defendant filed an appeal against the part of the lower judgment regarding the instant case, the part of the lower judgment regarding which the request for attachment order was filed pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc. However, the part regarding which the request for attachment order was filed pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Electronic Device. However, there is no legitimate ground for appeal as to the part regarding

3. As the appeal of the defendant is without merit, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the protection and observation of specific criminal offenders, and the attachment of electronic devices.