The judgment below

Part of the attachment order case shall be reversed.

With respect to the person against whom the attachment order is requested, location tracking for ten years.

1. Part of the defendant's case

A. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (three years and six months) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to a punishment for the same kind of crime; and (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime at a place where all his/her family members are located; (c) however, the Defendant is subject to strict punishment; (d) the Defendant’s agreement with the victim; (e) the Defendant is in profoundly against the Defendant’s mistake; and (e) the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant case and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, it does not seem that the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

2. On its own initiative, the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device in the order and omitted an order for the imposition of the duty, even though the pertinent legal provision on the imposition of the duty to comply was stated in the application of the law, and the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the attachment order case cannot be maintained any longer.

3. In conclusion, the Prosecutor’s appeal on the part of the Defendant’s case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the part of the attachment order case is subject to ex officio reversal as seen above. Thus, the part of the judgment below’s attachment order case is reversed in accordance with Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders and Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act,

The facts constituting the cause of an attachment order and the summary of the evidence, recognized by this court, are identical to the facts constituting the cause of the attachment order and the summary of the evidence, and thus, the court below’s determination is acceptable in accordance with Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders and Article 369 of

Application of Statutes

1. Location tracking device;