Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the Defendant’s case. 2) It is unreasonable to order the lower court to disclose and notify the information on the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) for two years.

B. The lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant, even though the Defendant does not pose a risk of recommitting a sexual crime, on the case requesting an attachment order

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant case, the degree of indecent act and force of the instant crime in relation to the assertion of unfair sentencing are weak, and the Defendant’s depth is in favor of the Defendant. As long as the execution of the sentence was completed, the Defendant left the same kind of crime in the instant case during the repeated crime period, and there are several criminal records in addition to the Defendant’s judgment, and the Defendant’s strong desire to punish the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant. In full view of all the aforementioned circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. Article 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes related to the Unfair Claims for Disclosure Order, Article 47(1) and (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, Article 5(1) of the Act on the Protection of Specific Crimes against Sexual Abuse.

The court below is legitimate.