In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The lower court’s sentencing (unfair sentencing) for the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (an order to disclose and notify personal information between 8 and 10 years of imprisonment, and an order to attach an electronic tracking device, an order to attach an electronic tracking device, an order to attach an electronic device, a duty of compliance, and a confiscation) is unfair because it is too unreasonable (the period of the order to attach an electronic tracking device is too excessive). B. The prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentencing is unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the fact that the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from that of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “defendant”), on account of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning, the lower court led to the confession of the Defendant, against the Defendant, without any history of the crime, and caused the Defendant to commit a crime due to a lack of knowledge, disorder, etc., and rape between the victim and the victim.