The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the case of the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") by the court below on unreasonable sentencing

2) The lower court omitted the sentence of forfeiture on each of the above seized articles, even though the sentence of forfeiture on each of the above seized articles was all used for the commission of crime, inasmuch as the sentence imposed upon the Defendant (20 years of imprisonment, 3 years of probation and compliance, 3 years of imprisonment, 4 years of imprisonment) is too unfluent and unfair. (2) The sentence of forfeiture on each of the above seized articles was omitted.

B. According to the results of the clinical evaluation conducted by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in the part of the request for attachment order, it is unreasonable to dismiss the prosecutor's request for attachment order by deeming that it is difficult for the lower court to readily conclude that the Defendant is likely to recommit a crime again in the future, and thus, it is unreasonable to dismiss the prosecutor's request for attachment order by deeming that it is difficult for the lower court to conclude that the Defendant is likely to recommit a crime again in the future.

2. Determination

A. The determination of sentencing on the allegation of unfair sentencing on the part of the Defendant case is based on the statutory penalty, and a discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis

However, considering the unique area of the sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing guidelines, or the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing.