Defendant

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

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) The punishment imposed by the original trial against the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (two years of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete a program, and 3 years of order to disclose or notify the order) is too unreasonable; and (b) the lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device again for a period of three years, even though the risk of recidivism is extinguished or significantly decreased as the attachment order was executed separately by the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the instant case led to the death of the party and led to the confession of the offense and the misunderstanding of the mistake in the lower court. The Defendant agreed to the victim and the father of the victim, and submitted a written application for the Defendant’s wife at the trial of the party. The instant crime is one of the concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, such as fraud for which the judgment became final, and the crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and needs to be considered at the same time with the case where the judgment was received.

However, the crime of this case is not suitable for the crime of this case to be committed in the room where the defendant's son or son, who is his son or son, is coming to the room where the defendant is her mother.

As a result, victims have a considerable mental impulse, and there are many adverse effects on the formation of sound sexual values in the future.

In addition, the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment twice due to sex crimes and has been punished several times, and committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime of the same crime.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment against the defendant cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too large. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court acknowledged the following based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.