Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal in the part of the case against the defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter "defendants") (hereinafter "the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for 6 years and 80 hours") by the court below in light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, are so excessive and unfair as to be unfair (the defendant claims that, with respect to the crime committed around July 201 from the grounds for appeal, he did not have sexual intercourse with the victim although he committed an indecent act but did not have sexual intercourse with the victim, the defendant withdraws the above argument to the effect that the mistake of facts at the first trial date in the trial of the court of the first instance, and arranged the argument that the above mistake of facts did not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal, and even after examining ex officio the above facts, there was an error of law by mistake as pointed out by the defendant in the judgment below.

In light of the various sentencing conditions of the prosecutor’s instant case, the above sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

In light of the method and object of the Defendant’s crime of this case, the Defendant is likely to recommit a sexual crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the defendant's request for an attachment order, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the risk of recidivism, which affected the judgment.

Judgment

Examining the various sentencing conditions of the Defendant in the part of the instant case (with regard to each unfair argument of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor), the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant offenses, (b) the mother of the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment under the agreement with the Defendant; (c) the Defendant is the primary offender who has no past record of criminal punishment; and (d) the aged of 70 years of age.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case is sexual intercourse once by force with the victim who was nine years of age at the time, because the defendant was the mother of the victim, and then 14 years of age.