Defendant

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

The lower court rendered a judgment regarding the part of the case against the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”); the judgment ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for five years with respect to the part regarding the case regarding the case regarding which the request for attachment order was filed; and the prosecutor’s request regarding the part regarding the case regarding the case regarding the protective observation order claim. Accordingly, the lower court appealed to the purport that only the Defendant is dissatisfied with the part regarding the case and the case regarding the attachment order claim.

Therefore, although an appeal is deemed to have been filed against a judgment on a claim for protection observation order under Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, there is no benefit in the appeal. Therefore, the part of the claim for protection observation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the part of the case of the defendant and the case for which the attachment order is requested falls under the scope of the judgment of this court.

The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is unfair because of the summary of the reasons for appeal.

In light of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) below, it is unfair to order the court below to disclose the defendant's personal information for a period of five years.

Part of the claim for attachment order: ① it is insufficient to consider the Defendant’s past 12 years and past 20 years solely on the ground that the risk of recidivism is high. ② The risk of recidivism may be lowered if the Defendant scam in that the instant forced indecent act is a criminal act committed by contingency under the influence of alcohol. ③ The risk of recidivism was determined by taking 16 points to assess the risk of sex offenders (KSAS), but the above points received by the Defendant are lower than the “high” section, and ④ the Defendant’s sentence is over 60 years old.