The judgment below

Of them, the part of the defendant's case against the defendant and the respondent A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the court below (the defendant A: 6 years of imprisonment and 120 hours of order to complete the order, the defendant B: 5 years of imprisonment and 120 hours of order to complete the order, and the defendant C: 2 years of imprisonment and 120 hours of order to complete the order, and 120 hours of order to complete the order) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s punishment on Defendant B and C in the part of the instant case is deemed to be too unfilled and unreasonable. 2) Even though the Defendants are likely to again refrain from committing a sex offense, it is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of the instant case.

2. Determination

A. The risk of recidivism of a sexual crime under Article 5(1) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders in the part of the case pertaining to the attachment order means that the possibility of recidivism is insufficient solely on the basis of the possibility of recidivism, and it is highly probable that the person subject to the request for the attachment order may injure the legal peace by committing a sexual crime again in the future. The existence of the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime must be objectively determined by comprehensively assessing various circumstances, including the occupation and environment of the person subject to the request for the attachment order, the conduct prior to the crime, the motive and means

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed a sex offense again in the future, taking account of the following: (a) the Defendants did not have any history of punishment for a sex offense; and (b) it is difficult to deem that the instant sexual crime was committed by the Defendants; (c) the risk of re-offending of a sex offender to the Defendants, as a result of the examination of the degree of assessment of the risk of re-offending of a sex offender to the Republic of Korea (K-STRAS); and (d) the Defendants’ mistake is divided and the relationship between Defendant A and his family members is maintained.