The judgment below

Part of the attachment order case shall be reversed.

The request for the attachment order of this case is dismissed.

The judgment below

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court on the part of the Defendant case is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device, even though the risk of recidivism of sexual crime is not recognized, to the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the part of the Defendant’s case is deemed to be the first offender and the fact that the victim agreed with the victim is acknowledged, but the number of crimes is high, the Defendant committed indecent act by force against the victim who is a practice student in a protection relationship as the president of the Labor-Management Institute, and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. 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 in the judgment on the part of the attachment order case refers to 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.

In addition, 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 requesting the attachment order, the motive and means of the crime before 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 assumptive judgment for the future.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, 2010Do444 Decided December 9, 2010). Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.