Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for the attachment order are dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court below, the 2nd 15th e.g.

1. The court below rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the case of the defendant, which ordered the attachment of an electronic device with regard to the part of the case of the attachment order, to dismiss the prosecutor’s request for the part of the protective observation order. Accordingly, the court below did not have any interest in appeal on the part of the case of the protective observation order, since only the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter the defendant) appealed.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the protection observation order among the judgment below is excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the defendant's case and the attachment order case.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A(1) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order Defendant A to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years, even though there is no risk of recidivism of a sexual crime against Defendant A.

B. Defendant B (1) The lower court’s sentencing on Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order Defendant B to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of 20 years, even though there is no risk of recidivism of a sexual crime against Defendant B (Defendant B’s defense counsel asserted that the disclosure and notification order with respect to Defendant B was unfair on March 23, 2016 and on the first trial date of the first instance trial, which was submitted after the deadline for submitting the appeal, but such circumstance alone has grounds for appeal as alleged.

Nor may see (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do848, May 31, 2007). 3. Determination

A. Defendant A(1) is recognized that Defendant A’s mistake is divided with regard to the wrongful argument of sentencing.

However, the defendant.