The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of a sexual assault treatment program, 5 years of disclosure order, 5 years of notification information, 5 years of notification information) against the Defendant and the person subject to an order to attach an electronic device (hereinafter “Defendant”) claiming unreasonable sentencing as to the accused case is unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for an attachment order against the Defendant on the ground of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the claim for attachment order.

2. Determination

A. Each of the instant crimes with respect to the assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the Defendant case is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the fact that the Defendant committed sexual intercourse or indecent act by force on several occasions by the victim C with mental disability, or that it is not good that the victim would have suffered considerable shock and damage due to each of the instant crimes; (b) the victim C did not take any measures to recover damage; (c) the victim C wanted to punish the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant was sentenced to a fine by force on around 2008 as an indecent act by force.

However, each of the crimes against the victim C began with the Defendant having a sense of care against the above victim, and the Defendant, who has intellectual ability to somewhat fall short of normal persons, appears to have continued to commit the crime against the victim who did not properly express his/her intent to refuse sexual intercourse with the remaining Defendant, and the crime against the victim H was committed together with the above victim who was known to him/her.