Defendant

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

The lower court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case of the Defendant, which cited the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case of the attachment order and the part of the case of the protective observation order.

In this regard, since only the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") have appealed, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the case of the protective observation order.

Therefore, this part is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this Court, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Devices Attachment, Etc. (hereinafter “Electronic Devices Attachment Act”).

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant 1) Mental and physical disorder: at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles on the claim for attachment order: the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of the risk of recidivism in the attachment order, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of the risk of recidivism in the attachment order.

Judgment

A. 1) In light of the circumstances indicated in the records such as the background leading up to the Defendant to the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior at the time of committing the instant crime, the circumstances after committing the instant crime, and the Defendant’s occupation, the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the principal activity at the time of committing the instant crime.

subsection (b) of this section.

We cannot accept the argument that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to the main activity at the time of the crime of this case.

2) The circumstances cited by the lower court in the unfair argument of sentencing (in particular, this Opinion).