Defendant

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

The lower court rendered a judgment on the part of the case of the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device with respect to the part of the case of the case of the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case of the case of the protective observation order. As such, the lower court did not have any interest in the appeal regarding the part of the case of the

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the claim for protection observation order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court. Thus, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part of the claim for the defendant's case and attachment order among the judgment below.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The sentence (six years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant in the part of the defendant case (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of ten years, even though the Defendant does not pose a risk of sexual assault and recidivism in the part of the case where the attachment order is applied.

Judgment

A. Determination of sentencing on the part of the case of the defendant is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing.