The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of a sexual assault treatment program, 5 years of disclosure and notification of personal information) against the accused case is unfair due to excessive uneasiness, and is so wrong that it is too short of five years of the period of attachment of an electronic tracking device against the person who requested an attachment order.

2. In full view of the various factors revealed in the judgment of the court below in the course of the sentencing review, it cannot be evaluated that the judgment of the court below, which mainly takes the details and methods of the crime of this case, the mental impulse and sense of sexual shame suffered by the victim, the agreement with the victim, tangible power and physical damage degree, the defendant's intelligence and criminal records, etc. as the main sentencing factors, exceeded the reasonable limits of the court below's discretion, and the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing in the case of the defendant at issue is without merit, since there were no circumstances or materials to deem that the maintenance of the court below's sentencing is improper or insufficient in the course of the above sentencing review.

In addition, the court below's decision that ordered the person who requested an attachment order to attach an electronic tracking device for five years without imposing the matters to be observed in consideration of the overall circumstances is appropriate, and there is no error as argued by the prosecutor.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

(Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders