The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years.

seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (eight years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s dismissal of the request for an attachment order against the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) with high risk of recidivism of a sexual crime by misapprehending the legal doctrine, is unreasonable.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, based on the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant had no history of punishment for a sexual crime; (b) the Defendant committed a crime with a special relationship of de facto kinship; and (c) the need to attach an electronic tracking device is not significant compared to the Defendant’s crime against an unspecified general public; (d) the risk of recidivism and the risk of recidivism as a result of evaluating the Defendant’s risk of recidivism as a result of evaluating the risk of recidivism, and the risk of recidivism as a result of evaluating the Defendant’s sexual offender’s risk against the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant’s completion of personal information registration and sexual assault treatment programs, thereby expected to have considerable effect on the prevention of recidivism

On the ground that it is difficult to conclude a request for attachment order by a prosecutor was dismissed.

If the judgment of the court below is examined closely by comparing it with the evidence, it is acceptable to accept the prosecutor's assertion.

3. The fact that the damaged party did not want the punishment of the defendant, and that the defendant is the primary offender is favorable to the defendant.

However, the nature of the crime of this case, which has sexual intercourse over several occasions, is extremely poor, and the victim is nine years of age.