Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence (three years of imprisonment, five years of disclosure and notification order, five years of employment restriction order) imposed by the lower court on the part of the case of the Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”), is too unreasonable.

B. The defendant is likely to recommit a sexual crime with regard to the part of the request for attachment order

In spite of the fact that the court below's order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of 10 years is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the part of the defendant's case, although the defendant is both led to a confession of all crimes, the defendant has been punished as a sexual crime several times, and the defendant committed the crime of this case again within the period of repeated crime after the execution of punishment was completed due to the previous sexual crime, and the crime of this case was committed under the status of attaching an electronic device upon obtaining an order to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years for the above previous sexual crime, and the nature of the crime is very heavy.

On the other hand, at the time of committing the instant crime, the victim seems to have been suffering from considerable fear and threat to the escape from home, without any intention to know, and the Defendant did not receive suspicion from such victims.

Therefore, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the details and contents of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, and the risk of recidivism, etc., the sentence of imprisonment, disclosure and notification order, and employment restriction order imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the part of the claim for attachment order, the lower court: (a) committed the instant crime while attaching the location tracking electronic device during the period of repeated crimes even though the Defendant had been punished several times for sexual crimes; and (b) committed the instant crime with a total point of 18 points as a result of the assessment of the risk of the Defendant’s sexual offender against Korea (KSOAS).