Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the attachment order case is excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the first instance court on the ground that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court and the trial,

Considering the fact that it is a crime against the victims of 8 years of age, the sentencing of the court below is too large and it is not recognized that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.