The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The statements made by the victim AA (a false statement, hereinafter “victim”) of the misunderstanding of facts are reliable.

The part which partially reversed the victim’s statement is not a major part of damage due to the circumstances immediately before the crime was committed, but a consistent statement was made as to the circumstances at the time of the crime, such as the prosecutor’s investigation of the witness and the statement at the court of the original trial that “It was erroneous that the Defendant and the person subject to the attachment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) went to the toilet.”

Crimes against victims are very similar to rape crimes against victims B.

In full view of these circumstances, the facts charged in relation to the victim and the fact that the cause of the claim for the attachment order is proved without reasonable doubt.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the facts charged and the fact that the cause of the claim for the attachment order was not proven, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant had the record of being punished for the crime of rape, and attempted to prevent the victims from suffering from the crime.

As a result of investigating the risk of recidivism against the defendant in the probation office, the risk of recidivism was high.

Therefore, since the defendant is highly likely to repeat sex offenses, it is necessary to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Criminal Procedure Act is a factor of the principle of court-oriented trial that the formation of a conviction or innocence should be based on a court-oriented trial, and only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge may be based on the trial, and the original evidence which is the most adjacent to the facts to be proved should be based on the trial, and the use of the substitute for the original evidence should not be permitted in principle.