Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The judgment below

“Defendant.” in the text.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower judgment by the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable (a three-year imprisonment, an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 80 hours, and an order to disclose and notify a five-year period).

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentencing of the lower judgment’s improper sentencing is too uneasible.

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case even if the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) are likely to recommit a sexual crime.

2. Determination

A. Determination of unfair sentencing is a discretionary determination based on the statutory penalty that takes into account the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors that constitute the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, there is a unique area for determination of sentencing under Article

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the fact that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. In light of the content, method, frequency, etc. of each of the instant crimes, poor quality of the crimes were committed, the Defendant did not make efforts to compensate the victims, but did not reach an agreement with the victims.