The judgment below

The part of the case of the attachment order shall be reversed.

With respect to the person against whom an attachment order is requested, it shall be for a period of ten years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the crime of unclaimed physical and mental drugs, the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were under the influence of alcohol and were in a physical and mental state.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years on the ground that the sentence is too unreasonable to give information disclosure and notification between 10 years and 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor, and that there is a risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crimes.

2. Determination

A. According to the record on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant may be found to have committed the instant crime under the influence of drinking. However, in light of the background and method leading up to the instant crime, the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state which lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

As such, we cannot see this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. As to the sentencing of the lower court, the Defendant’s reflects on the sentencing, and the fact that rape crimes were committed on attempted crimes are favorable to the Defendant.

However, there is a history of punishment for the crime of causing rape in the past and the crime of causing rape in the past, and the defendant was punished for the crime of causing rape in the above crime on May 7, 2013, and again committed the crime of this case within the repeated crime period after the execution of the punishment was completed on May 7, 2013, and the victim seems to have suffered a big mental impulse due to the crime of this case.

Considering the aforementioned circumstances and other various conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, career, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable in this case where there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

(c).