The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant part of the Defendant’s case (two years and six months of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, and forty hours of sexual assault treatment program) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. The judgment below that dismissed the defendant's request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device even if the defendant's request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device is found to pose a risk of recidivism

2. Determination

A. The instant crime committed on the part of the Defendant case is an indecent act against a female child or juvenile under the age of 13 who invaded upon the Defendant’s residence and was diving, and its nature is not good.

However, in full view of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects on the fact that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, that there was an agreement with the victim, that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency while drinking, and that the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and motive and circumstance of the instant crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. The former Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (amended by Act No. 11558, Dec. 18, 2012) and Article 5(1) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders in the part of the attachment order case refer to the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes as stipulated in Article 5(1) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders is not sufficient enough to repeat the crime, and it is highly probable that the person who requested the attachment order

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, 2010Do444, Dec. 9, 2010). With respect to the instant case, the health unit and the Defendant had no record of being punished for a sex offense before, and the degree of risk assessment of a sex offender against the Defendant (KS-ORAS).