Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

Although there is a special reason to not disclose or notify the personal information to the defendant, it is unfair that the court below ordered the defendant to disclose or notify the personal information for three years.

It is necessary to judge strictly the attachment of an electronic tracking device in the part of the application for attachment order.

그런데 피고인이 다른 범행인 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(공중밀집장소에서의추행)죄로 기소유예처분을 받기 전에 이 사건 범행을 저질렀고, 피고인이 위 기소유예처분을 받은 이후로는 동종 범죄를 저지르지 않았으며, 가족들의 도움을 받아 이마트 장애인 채용프로그램에 지원하여 합격하는 등 점차 나아지는 모습을 보여 왔고, 피고인이 아직 �은 나이라는 사정 등을 고려하면, 원심이 피고인에게 6년간의 위치추적 전자장치의 부착을 명한 것은 부당하다.

Judgment

It is reasonable to respect the argument of unfair sentencing on the part of the Defendant case in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court’s failure to change the sentencing conditions. In full view of the factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too so excessive that its discretion exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

As to the improper argument of disclosure and notification order.