Defendant

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

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below imposed on the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the defendant”) and the attachment order is too unreasonable.

2. Although the defendant reflects on the fact that he was sentenced to a long-term punishment due to the crime committed by rape of several victims, in that the defendant tried to rape and injured a female returning home again even though he was sentenced to a punishment for a long time due to the crime committed by rape, and that the crime's nature and circumstances are very serious, and considering all the sentencing conditions on the argument of this case including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background leading to the crime of this case, method and consequence of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., it is not recognized that the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. According to Article 9 (1) 1 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the period of attachment of the location tracking device ordered by the court below is not less than 10 years and not more than 30 years in case of a specific crime, which is death penalty or life imprisonment, the period of attachment of the electronic device of this case is more than five years, and the defendant's allegation that the period of attachment is unfair.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. It is so decided as per Disposition.