Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

In addition, it is unreasonable to order the disclosure and notification of personal information of the person subject to a request for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendants").

B. The lower court erred by ordering the Defendant to attach a location tracking electronic device, in the absence of the risk of sexual assault and recidivism.

2. Determination of the accused case

A. The lower court, on the assertion of unfair sentencing, tried to engage in sexual traffic by assaulting and under investigation by the police without giving the money which the Defendant promised to have sexual intercourse with the female at home, under the favorable circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant both recognized the crime and against himself, the Defendant seems to have lost self-defense during the course of sexual traffic in the case of rape and assaulting, the degree of damage is minor in the case of larceny and fraud, and the Defendant suffers from brain death, and attempted to engage in sexual traffic under the same method.

After the crime of rape was committed, considering the following circumstances: (a) the victim committed sexual traffic at a sexual traffic business establishment using the stolen debit card that was stolen from the victim, there is a great possibility of criticism in the course of the crime; (b) the damage recovery was not made; and (c) the crime of indecent act by compulsion by the disabled, etc. committed several identical offenses since three months have not passed since he was sentenced to imprisonment for a long time on the grounds of the crime of indecent act by the disabled; (d) the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment of the accused case was determined to be four years of imprisonment.

When comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentencing of the accused case is discretionary.