All appeals filed by the defendant, the person subject to attachment order, the person subject to medical treatment and custody, and the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in the instant case and dismissed the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months, etc. on the ground that it is difficult to deem the Defendant to repeat a sexual crime with respect to the prosecutor’s request for attachment order.

However, the prosecutor did not appeal the part regarding the claim for attachment order as to the above part, and the defendant does not have any interest in appeal as to the above part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7079, 2010Do41, Aug. 19, 2010). Notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, the part regarding the claim for attachment order is excluded from the scope of this court’s trial.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) The Defendant was subject to a mental appraisal result to the effect that there is a need for medical treatment and custody by failing to express an intentional distorted speech at the time of the lower judgment’s mental appraisal, etc., and that there is a need for medical treatment and custody. However, the lower court accepted the remaining medical treatment and custody claim of this case where the said mental appraisal result was highly believed, and thus, the part of the lower

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

3. Determination

A. The lower judgment on the part of the Defendant case (written in detail in the 7 and 8 pages of the lower judgment) is the statutory penalty (limited to imprisonment of at least two years, a fine of at least ten million won, and a fine of at least 30 million won), applicable sentences, sentencing guidelines, other sentencing guidelines, other sentencing cases, and judicial precedents on the appellate court’s sentencing judgment (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015) against which the instant medical treatment and custody application in this case was accepted, and compulsory isolation by the State is possible.