The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the case by Defendant 1) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspension of execution, observation of protection, and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures) against the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”), is unreasonable, because the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible.

2) Although the court below exempted the Defendant from disclosure or notification order, it is unfair that the court below exempted the Defendant from disclosure or notification order.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the defendant's request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device despite the risk of recommitting a sexual crime, such as the defendant's previous convictions and two times.

2. Determination

A. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the sentencing of the Defendant 1 is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment 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, based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and direct care.

In addition, considering 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 of the appellate court, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Since the new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the health department and the appellate court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing in comparison with the lower court, and the reasons for sentencing stated by the lower court are comprehensively considered.