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) of the Defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (the issuance of an order to disclose information between four years and five years, and an order to attach an electronic device and an order to attach an electronic device for tracking a location between 20 years) is excessively unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and 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 to these circumstances, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto and in-depth nature, 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 of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the judgment of the first instance on the sole basis of the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) on account of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The Defendant was subject to the Defendant’s attempted crime, and the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder and the Defendant’s sexual suffering and suffering of the victim.