beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The part of the Defendant case: The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one and half years of imprisonment, and three years of disclosure notice) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of three years is unreasonable for the part of the claim for attachment order.
2. Determination
A. As to the part of the Defendant case, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data in the appellate court, and in full view of all the grounds for sentencing revealed in the course of the pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, this part of the defendant and the respondent of the attachment order are without merit.
B. As to the part of the request for attachment order, the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime under Article 5(1) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Act”) means a probable probability that the person subject to the request for attachment order may injure the legal peace by again committing a sexual crime in the future. The existence of the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime ought to be determined objectively by comprehensively assessing various circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the person subject to the request for attachment order, the criminal conduct before and after the crime, the motive and means of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the situation after the crime, etc.
In addition, Article 5 (1) 3 of the Act refers to any mistake of a criminal and the tendency of a crime. The nature that forms the essence of the act is not that of the offender, but the character that forms the character of the offender. Thus, the existence of the habition shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the age, character, occupation, environment, and criminal record of the offender, motive, means, method and place of the crime, interval with the previous crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do82, Sept. 29, 2011). The lower court is legitimate.