All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part of the Defendant case - The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the requester for attachment order, and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “defendants”) shall be unreasonably weak.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device despite the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime.

2. Determination

A. As to the part of the defendant's case, the crime of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant, in light of the following: (a) the nature of the crime committed by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by indecent act by deceiving the chest and the part of the female her mother under 12 years of age; (b) the mental impulse suffered by the victim is deemed to be large; and (c) the fact that

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is aged 65 years old, that the defendant appears to have caused the crime of this case in the state of mental and physical disability due to the dementia in the degree of serious symptoms, cerebral disease disorder, etc., and that the defendant's wife and her children want to find the defendant's wife in the state of mental and physical disability are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, in full view of all other circumstances, including the character and conduct of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below did not determine that the court below's sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission (decision of type), sex crime group, sex crime subject to the age of 13, type 3, and indecent act (special mitigation factors), mental or physical disability [the scope of recommending punishment] sentenced to a punishment lower than the lower limit of 2 years to 6 months to 5 years (limited to mitigation areas), and it is too unreasonable.

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

B. (1) With respect to the part regarding the request for attachment order, the lower court’s determination is that the instant crime was based on the realization of the mental illness of the person against whom the request for attachment order was made, and the investigator before the request for attachment order is made, shall continue to provide the treatment to the person