The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case and the part of the case for attachment order shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months.

1. The court below sentenced the defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device for five years with respect to the part of the defendant’s case regarding which the request for the attachment order was made, and sentenced to dismissal of the prosecutor’s request with respect to the part of the request for probation order. Since only the defendant appealed, there is no benefit of appeal with respect to the part regarding the request for probation order.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”), the scope of inquiry by this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant and the case of the case of the attachment order, and the part of the case of the request of probation order

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order for a crime of similar rape to constitute a specific violent crime by misapprehending the legal principles, the crime of similar rape in the instant case constitutes “where a person commits a crime of similar rape in accordance with Article 297-2 of the Criminal Act by carrying dangerous objects or jointly carrying not less than two persons of dangerous objects” under Article 2(1)4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes (hereinafter “Special Act”). The crime of similar rape in the instant case does not constitute a case where a person carries dangerous objects or jointly

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of specific violent crimes, which applied Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, on the ground that the crime of similar rape of this case constitutes a specific violent crime.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

C. It is unreasonable that the lower court ordered the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years, although the Defendant was not likely to repeat a sexual crime.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

(b) a prosecutor;