In addition, both the appeal by the person requested to attach an attachment order and the appeal by the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order.

B. Prosecutor 1) Unless there are special circumstances that the lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable, and thus, it is unreasonable that the lower court did not issue an order to disclose and notify the information to the Defendant, on the grounds that the dismissal of an order to disclose and notify the personal information of the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

3. It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case even though the defendant who was improper to dismiss the attachment order of this case committed a sexual crime two or more times, and committed a sexual crime against a person under the age of 19, and committed a sexual crime.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor requires strict punishment against the Defendant, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant, as the operator of a private teaching institute under his duty to report sex offenses against children or juveniles, was sexual intercourse twice by taking advantage of the victim’s state of failing to resist under the influence of alcohol; (b) the nature of the crime is not good; (c) the Defendant, as a student of the private teaching institute under his protection and supervision of the Defendant, became aware of mental suffering and suffering that it is difficult for the victim to recover from the age limit due to the crime of this case; and (d) the Defendant

However, when the defendant was in the trial, all of the crimes of this case are led to confessions, the errors of the defendant are divided and reflected, the defendant has no criminal records for the same kind of crime, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court is difficult to be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion. Other conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.