The judgment below

The part of the attachment order case shall be reversed.

Defendant

In addition, for a period of five years for the person who requested the attachment order.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

B. The judgment of the court below that dismissed the defendant's request for attachment order against the defendant even if the defendant recognizes the necessity of attachment of an electronic device in light of the content of the crime in this case where the victim who committed an indecent act by force was committed against the victim who was not older than eight years old, and the risk

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case in part of the defendant was committed by the defendant with an indecent act against the victim under eight years of age, and its nature is very poor.

It seems that the crime of this case led to considerable mental impulse to the victim.

In 2005, even though the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime for the attempted rape, it is highly likely to criticize the defendant in that he committed another crime while drinking again.

However, the defendant shows that he is divided by being involved in his criminal act from the investigative agency.

In the process of committing indecent acts, the defendant did not exercise the force against the victim, and was committed in an indecent act once simply.

The defendant has no record of punishment in addition to punishment of a fine for obscenity in 2005, which was sentenced once to a punishment for the same crime, or one time for public performance in 2014.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment in the sentencing guidelines (from 8 months to 2 years of imprisonment), the lower court’s sentencing is not determined to be unfairly light of the reasonable scope.

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

B. Part 1 of the attachment order case) The lower court determined that ① the Defendant’s evaluation of the risk of recidivism by a Korean sexual offender (K-SORAS) constitutes “highly high” as 15 points, but the Defendant’s evaluation of the risk of recidivism by a Korean sexual offender (PCL) constitutes “highly high.”