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

A. The part of the case of the defendant asserts that the punishment (7 years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) imposed by the court below, the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter "the defendant") are too unreasonable because they are too unfasible and unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too unfasible and unfair.

B. The prosecutor asserts that it is improper for the court below to dismiss the defendant's request for an attachment order despite the risk of recommitting a sexual crime.

The part of the defendant case

A. Determination of unfair sentencing on each of the grounds of statutory penalty is a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). ① Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”) is very inappropriate to commit a crime of sexual intercourse by force with one who has intellectual disability C by a defendant to meet his/her own sexual desire, and ② the victim is the defendant.