The judgment below

The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s sentence imposed on the Defendant (a 2-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for 2-years and 3-years and 4-6-years and 3-years of suspended sentence for 2-years and 4-6 crimes) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence imposed by the court below to the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order to A (hereinafter “the defendant”) against the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “the defendant”) is too unfasible and unfair.

It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case despite the risk of recommitting a sex crime.

2) As to Defendant B, C, and D, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (as to the crimes of Defendant B: 2 as indicated in the holding, 3 million won of fine, Defendant C, and D with respect to the crimes of 3 years and 6 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, and 4 and 6 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for 3 years, 3 years of suspended sentence of 2 years of imprisonment for

2. Determination:

A. Defendant AW was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the judgment of the court below, but it is apparent that the period of this judgment became adult at the time of the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below’s judgment that reduced the Defendant’s juvenile under the law on the ground that the Defendant was a juvenile under the Juvenile Act was no longer maintained.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing against Defendant B and the Prosecutor, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the sentencing of Defendant A does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the punishment against the said Defendants by taking into account all the circumstances favorable to Defendant A, B, and C, circumstances unfavorable to them, and their age, sex, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., and there is no special change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court.