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

A. The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) are too unreasonable as the lower court’s punishment (fine 20 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case, despite the risk of repeating the crime, on the ground that the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the Defendant committed the instant crime against a juvenile during the period of imprisonment sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant’s failure to receive a letter from the victim is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case in the past when he was in a trial, it is difficult to see that the degree of the crime of this case is heavy, and that the defendant committed a little contingent act while being in action, and that the defendant is currently aged 68 years old and is a person of distinguished service to the Vietnam War 7th degree of disability rating and is suffering from a disease

In full view of the aforementioned grounds for sentencing, the character, conduct, family relationship, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and consequences, etc., as seen above, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable, taking into account various circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

B. As to the prosecutor’s rejection of the prosecutor’s request for an attachment order, the court may not issue an attachment order to the defendant pursuant to Article 9(4)3 of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, so long as the court below’s fine against the defendant is deemed appropriate.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's assertion is without examining any further reasons.

3. Conclusion