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

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. The period of the lower court’s improper attachment order is too unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The discretion of the fact-finding court on the sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing sentence 1) in light of the principle of balanced sentencing or the principle of accountability that a reasonable balance between the crime and the punishment should be achieved, has an inherent limitation within the scope of sentencing determination on the criminal charge as indicated in the facts charged by the defendant in question, in view of the principle of accountability that the crime should be based on the responsibility and proportionality. As such, the fact-finding court, based on the crime prosecuted against the defendant, did not prove the circumstances constituting a separate criminal offense that is not included in the sentencing condition as provided in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances after the crime, but did not have been proven by evidence having probative value to the extent that it excludes reasonable doubt, the court below’s determination of the punishment as the core sentencing condition, and thus, did not violate the above principle of balanced sentencing or the principle of accountability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do18126, May 29, 2008).