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) (an order to disclose and notify personal information between seven and five years, and an order to attach an electronic device tracking device, and an order to attach an electronic device for 20 years) is unfair because it is too much unreasonable (the period of the order to attach an electronic device for location tracking device is too excessive). B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentencing is too 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 of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing 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 appellate court solely on the ground that the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion but is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), on account of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning, sentenced the victim’s mental disorder and juvenile victim’s sexual intercourse, etc.