Defendant

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (an order to disclose or notify personal information between one year and two years, and an order to attach an electronic tracking device and an order to attach an electronic device for compliance between two years) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition to these circumstances, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto and in-depth nature, 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 in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, etc.). The lower court sentenced the same punishment to the victims who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) on account of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning, including the fact that the Defendant was led to a criminal act, and the Defendant appears to have committed a criminal act under the mental and physical weakness, and the circumstances favorable to the sentencing in the first instance court have already been determined from the lower court to the extent that the Defendant had not been sufficiently recovered from the victim’s punishment.