Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The judgment of the court below shall be executed 18 after the 18th page of the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is also unreasonable to order the Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an electronic tracking device (hereinafter “Defendant”) to whom the lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of the defendant, the defendant was subject to criminal punishment several times for sexual crimes, in particular, after having been convicted of a sexual crime and completed the execution of the sentence, the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime, and most sexual crimes of the defendant were derived from excessive drinking. The defendant was assessed as the " alcohol addict group requiring specialized hospital treatment" in the examination of screening of alcohol using disability (AUDIT-K), the family and social relationship with the defendant is lacking enough, and the victims did not recover from damage to the victim.

Although the victims knew about the mental shock that is difficult to see, it is difficult to view that the degree of indecent act by compulsion is serious in terms of the form of conduct, and that the defendant recognized his mistake and divided it is favorable to the defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of all the conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background, means and consequence of the instant case’s pleading, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion in sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant and the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is rejected in entirety.

B. In the case of a request for an attachment order, the Defendant was notified of a fine for the crime of indecent act by force in 2004, and even thereafter, a fine is imposed on several occasions due to performance, obscenity, etc.