Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2) Unless there are special circumstances that the court below did not issue an order to disclose and notify the information to the defendant, in the absence of an improper defendant of the disclosure and notification order and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter the defendant).

3) Although the court below found that the defendant committed a sexual crime on at least two occasions against the defendant involved in the attachment order and found the risk of recidivism, it is improper to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the defendant's wrong judgment on the defendant's and prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is divided.

However, even though the crime of this case must be protected and brought up as a relative of the victim, the crime of this case was committed by indecent act and rape by using the victim's authority as a relative, and the nature of the crime is heavy, social, morally and morally, and the defendant did not agree with the victim up to the depth of the party, and taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the defendant and the prosecutor's above assertion are without merit.

B. The lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s improper assertion on the prosecutor’s disclosure and notification order 1) The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s risk of recommitting a crime, on the grounds that the Defendant had no record of punishment for sexual crimes, etc.

It is difficult to see, 2.