The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than four years and six months.

For the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (six years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

(2) The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for attachment order, which was improper, despite the risk of repeating the offense.

C.2. Determination

A. As to the part of the Defendant case, the nature of the instant crime is very poor in light of the subject, frequency, and content of the instant crime.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant was the first offender; (b) when committing all crimes in the first instance trial; (c) when reaching the first instance trial; (d) the victims have reached an agreement with the victims; and (e) the details and motive leading up to each of the instant crimes; (b) the circumstances after committing the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. Regarding the part of the case for which an attachment order is requested, the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime under Article 5(1) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders means that the possibility of recidivism is not sufficient enough, and it is highly probable that the person who requested the attachment order will injure legal peace by committing a sexual crime again in the future.

The existence of the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime shall be objectively determined by comprehensively assessing various circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the person against whom the attachment order is requested, the motive and means of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the situation after the crime. Such a determination is based on the time of judgment, since it is a constructive judgment for the future.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, 2010Do444, Dec. 9, 2010). The lower court erred by misapprehending the aforementioned legal doctrine.