In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentencing on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable. 2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for attachment order even if the lower court’s dismissal of the request for attachment order is recognized as an unfair criminal

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original judgment is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as an element of sentencing are already revealed in the proceedings of the lower court’s pleadings, or the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment. There is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines and the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

In full view of the circumstances indicated by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, and the result of the judgment prior to this court’s judgment, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable as it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines.

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

B. As to the prosecutor’s rejection of the prosecutor’s request for attachment order, the lower court: (a) as a result of the evaluation of the adult recidivism risk assessment tool (KORAS-G) against the Defendant, the risk of recidivism falls under an intermediate level; (b) the risk of recidivism under the PC-R’s selection scheme (PCL-R) also constitutes an intermediate level; and (c) the risk of recidivism under the PC-R is an intermediate level; and (d) the degree of the risk of recidivism is 11.