2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s case committed a sex offense against children under the age of 13 (the age of 6 to 9) who are vulnerable to the Defendant’s crime; the Defendant committed a indecent act by compulsion against children and obscenity under the same Act even prior to each of the instant crimes; the Defendant had a record of suspended execution of execution of sentence, and having been punished by a fine; and the Defendant’s health status is extremely poor due to the symptoms such as cardio-cerebrovascular disease, urology, and high blood pressure due to the age of 79 years old; the Defendant’s confession of all of the instant crimes; and the Defendant’s behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime; the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime; and the recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment is too unfair.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

B. If the prosecutor of the attachment order case filed an appeal against the prosecuted case, it is deemed that the prosecutor filed an appeal against the attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. However, even if the prosecutor did not submit any grounds for appeal regarding the attachment order case, the prosecutor did not ex officio investigate and reverse the part of the attachment order case.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in entirety under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, on the grounds that the appeal by the prosecutor is groundless.