Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to impose an order to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of five years on the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), including that the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), should take out the device from the 23:00 to 06:00 on the following day.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court in the part of the instant case against the Defendant, based on the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, including the fact that the Defendant was punished several times as sexual assault crimes and was in the period of repeated crime and the period of attachment of electronic device, and that the Defendant’s indecent act was committed on the taxi operated by himself/herself, and that the nature of the crime was serious, and that the degree of conduct was not relatively much serious, and that the Defendant was disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the court below, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the court below in the court below, and considering various circumstances as seen earlier and all sentencing factors as seen in the argument of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, found that the Defendant is likely to recommit a sexual crime.

In light of the fact that the defendant ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of five years, the duty of compliance was imposed from 23:00 to 06:00 the following day.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is reasonable to impose the matters to be observed, such as the attachment and exit.