Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The sentence of imprisonment by the lower court is too unlimited and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant case, the relevant legal doctrine refers to the case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific contents of the case. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court, and the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court. On the other hand, in full view of the following factors: (a) in the event that the lower court’s determination of sentencing was deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of the discretion; or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, the appellate court should reverse the unfair judgment of the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

A. The lower court comprehensively takes into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s recognition of all of the instant crimes is against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant is a person with a disability of grade 6 due to dwarf due to fluence; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crimes under the circumstance of attaching an electronic tracking device during the repeated crime due to quasi-indecent act; (d) the Defendant had a history of having been subject to seven times or criminal punishment due to sexual assault; and (e) the Defendant appears to have caused considerable sexual humiliation and mental pain due to the instant crimes; and (e) the Defendant did not make any effort to recover the victim’s damage; and (e) the overall sentencing conditions are