The part of the judgment of the first instance requesting attachment order shall be reversed.

With respect to the person against whom the attachment order is requested, location tracking is 20 years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) The first instance court of unfair sentencing is only the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact that the first instance court dismissed the request for the attachment order of an electronic tracking device despite the risk of recommitting a sexual crime. (2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the dismissal of the request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, there are more favorable factors of sentencing such as the defendant's recognition of his criminal act and the victim's mother, the victim's and the victim's mother do not want the punishment of the defendant, the support of the aged mother's mother, and the support of the body as a diving investigation.

On the other hand, the defendant committed an indecent act on several occasions against the victim's parents, rapes, thereby resulting in a fluence of the female, and thus, the victim suffered a serious mental or physical suffering and has a high possibility of criticism. This is also recognized as an unfavorable element of sentencing, such as the fact that the victim suffered a significant mental or physical suffering and has a great impediment to the formation of a sound sexual sense.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, the motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem to be too light or unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor and the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on the part of the claim for attachment order, the Defendant’s summary of the first attachment order is identical to the facts constituting the crime.