All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal and the accused and the requester for the attachment order, and the requester for the protective order: The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of eight years and the completion of 80 hours for sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

Part of the case against the defendant by the prosecutor: The sentence that the court below sentenced unfairly in sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

Part of the case of attachment order and protective observation: It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for attachment order and the request for the protective observation order, even though there is a risk of recommitting this sexual crime by misunderstanding the legal principles and the requester for the attachment order and the requester for the protective observation order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant").

The sentencing of the defendant's case on the basis of the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors on the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). As to each of the unfair sentencing arguments by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the following are examined: (a) the Defendant recognizes each of the instant crimes and is against the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant is punished for a sex offense or exceeds the fine.