Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The first instance court’s judgment of conviction against a prosecuted case and ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device for 20 years as to the case claiming the attachment order. However, during the second trial, the prosecutor clarified that the request for the probation order is revoked, and notified the decision dismissing the request (Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, Article 328(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and Article 405 of the Criminal Procedure Act, even with the immediate appeal period as stipulated under Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the request for probation order is excluded from the scope of the trial of the

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant case 1) Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”)

(ii) The sentence sentenced by each court below on the first instance judgment (the first instance judgment: 9 years of imprisonment, etc.: 4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and thus the sentence sentenced by the first instance court on the examination is too uneasible.

(b) It is improper that the first instance court, for which a request to attach an electronic device is filed, issues an order to attach an electronic tracking device to the accused;

In the statement of grounds of appeal dated December 5, 2018, which was directly prepared and submitted by the Defendant, stating, “(after release) the sentence to attach an electronic tracking device is placed on the circumstances in which normal economic activities are difficult,” and such statement is deemed to be an assertion disputing the legitimacy of the attachment order.

3. On the Defendant’s ex officio reversal, the first and second original judgments are pronounced, and the Defendant filed each appeal against each of the above original judgments, and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the first original judgment, and this court decided to concurrently examine each of the above appellate cases.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by each court below, the defendant is guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse at the Jung-gu District Court on April 6, 2017.