The judgment below

Part of the attachment order case shall be reversed.

For a person against whom an attachment order is requested, location tracking shall be five years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant, the person to whom the attachment order was requested, and the person to whom the medical treatment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant, which did not pose a risk of recidivism of sexual assault crimes, is unfair and unfair in that the period is too long.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case as to the part of the defendant's case was committed two times by the defendant, who was punished for sexual assault crimes at a soup, which is a place where the public is concentrated, and one of them was sentenced to imprisonment for a year and six months, and the victim did not take two months after being discharged from the prison, and again, the victim committed an indecent act at the soup and soup, and submitted false changed information about his personal affairs to the head of the competent police office three times, and the crime was bad, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental shock due to the instant case. Nevertheless, the victim was not recovered from damage, and the victim was punished against the defendant; the victim was punished for the same crime; the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, the circumstances of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. were considered in light of all the circumstances surrounding the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, it cannot be deemed unfair for the court below to find that the defendant is against the defendant, and even if it was somewhat low and there was no punishment to comply with the order of pharmacologic treatment.

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

B. The decision on the part of the medical treatment order is deemed to have filed an appeal against the case of medical treatment order pursuant to Article 8(7) of the Act on Pharmacologic Treatment of Sexual Offenders, but it is not stated in the grounds of appeal or petition of appeal of the defendant.