Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court on the part of the Defendant case (six years of imprisonment, seven years of disclosure and notification) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years in the part of the case where the attachment order is requested.

2. Determination

A. As to the part of the Defendant case, no new sentencing data was submitted in the appellate court, the sentencing conditions do not change any particular matters compared with the lower court.

In addition, in full view of all the reasons for sentencing revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, this part of the allegation by the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the part of the claim for attachment order, the court below's determination of facts and circumstances is fully acceptable.

Examining the facts of the recognition, etc., there is a risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crimes against the accused.

may be appointed by a person.

In addition, Article 9(1)1 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc. provides that the upper limit of the statutory penalty provides that the period of attachment of a sexual crime, which is an indefinite imprisonment, shall be between 10 and 30 years. Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that a person who intrudes upon residence, commits rape, shall be punished by imprisonment for life or by imprisonment for not less than 5 years. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the period of attachment against the Defendant is an unreasonably long-term term.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.