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 punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant and the person for whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “defendant”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the instant case reflects his mistake by recognizing all of the instant crimes.

The degree of tangible force of the defendant exercised against the victim is minor, and the degree of injury suffered by the victim is not much serious.

However, prior to the instant case, the Defendant already committed several sexual crimes and was sentenced to punishment, and the Defendant committed the instant indecent act by compulsion in a similar way as committing the previous crime while attaching an electronic device during the period of repeated crime.

The victim suffered a considerable mental impulse due to the defendant's crime, but the victim did not take any measures to recover the damage.

In addition, considering the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant, all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. When the accused of the attachment order case filed an appeal against the accused case, it is deemed that the accused of the attachment order also filed an appeal against the attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.

However, the defendant did not submit legitimate grounds for appeal regarding the attachment order case, and even after examining the judgment of the court below, there is no reason to investigate and reverse this part ex officio.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.