Defendant

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

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

It is also unreasonable for the court below to order the attachment of a location tracking electronic device for 10 years, when the punishment sentenced to the defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendants") is too heavy (three years of imprisonment).

It is more favorable to the following: (a) the instant special rape-related crime of this case’s assertion on the assertion of unfair sentencing was committed in attempted crimes; (b) the victim of a sexual crime and the victims of fraud caused by the integrative type; (c) the payment of the amount used in full to the owner of the stolen credit card; and (d) the damage to the owner of the credit card member stores was recovered by fully paying the amount used; (d) the Defendant himself/herself is aware that the crime was committed repeatedly due to alcohol dependence; and (e) he/she is willing to receive medical treatment in the future; and (e)

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant attempted to commit rape by threatening a victim with dangerous articles; (b) even though there was the past record of punishment nine times in fraud due to theless taking-out type (one of the seven penalties was sentenced; and (c) the Defendant committed a fraudulent crime due to theless taking-out type 2 times at the same time; and (d) the Defendant committed a fraudulent crime due to the theft of another’s property; and (b) caused a new victim by preventing a fraud by using a stolen credit card instead of taking advantage of a stolen credit card; (b) the Defendant’s strict punishment corresponding to his/her liability is inevitable; and (c) other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, and the sentencing guidelines (two years and six months or more), etc. of the Sentencing Committee (two years and six months or more) do not seem to be void

The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s sexual crime as a result of the risk assessment of the Korean sex offender (KSAS).