All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of the case against the defendant: The defendant asserts that the amount of the punishment is unfair because the defendant is too unreasonable (six years of imprisonment with prison labor) of the court below, and that the amount of the punishment is unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that the amount of the punishment is unfair because it is too unhued.

B. The prosecutor asserts that the Defendant’s dismissal of the request for attachment order of an electronic device at the lower court is unlawful even if there is a risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, whether the defendant denies the crime in the court below and did not properly endeavor to recover the damage to the victim, the appellate court recognizes it, reflects it, and intends to commit the crime of death to the victim, but the defendant did not receive the written request from the victim.

In addition, new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court.

The conditions of sentencing in the appellate court have been significantly changed compared to those of the lower court to change the sentence of the lower court.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, considering all the sentencing factors revealed in the appellate court's trial based on the sentencing reasons cited in the judgment of the court below, the sentence of the court below is too heavy to the extent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion of the court.

Therefore, we cannot accept each of the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the part of the request for attachment order, all of the circumstances acknowledged in the judgment below as to the request for attachment order among the reasons for the judgment below are just and acceptable, and in light of the circumstance of recognition, etc., the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone is highly probable that the person subject to attachment order may injure legal peace by committing a sex crime again in the future.

It is insufficient to recognize it.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is a dispute.