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

A. The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and forty hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable, on the ground that the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”), is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s judgment dismissing the Defendant’s request for attachment order on the ground that it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s punishment on the part of the Defendant’s case is too uneasible and unreasonable. 2) As such, the lower court’s dismissal is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court sentenced 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment to the Defendant and 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, considering all the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, even if the Defendant and the Prosecutor consider all the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal in light of the record, the lower court’s sentencing is unreasonable or light of the following: (a) the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s each of the instant offenses were committed repeatedly against the victims; (b) the nature of the crime was extremely poor; (c) the victim did not take any measures to recover from damage; (d) whether the victims of indecent act were sexual humiliation and mental pain; and (e) the Defendant appears to be against the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant’s favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, and circumstances after committing the crime.

The grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor are without merit.

B. The lower court dismissed the prosecutor’s request for an attachment order on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is likely to recommit a sexual crime. Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s above determination is justifiable.

This part of the appeal by a prosecutor is justified.