The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentencing on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court on the part of the Defendant case, and the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The grounds asserted by the prosecutor in this court as sentencing factors are shown to be the circumstances in which the lower court had already been present in the hearing process of the lower court, or the lower court has fully taken into account the punishment for the Defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter

Considering the circumstances that the lower court rendered on the grounds of sentencing comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant arguments and records, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentencing was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and cannot be deemed as being too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. As long as the prosecutor partly filed an appeal against the accused case regarding the case claiming an attachment order, it shall be deemed that an appeal has been filed against the case claiming an attachment order pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, Etc., however, the petition of appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the prosecutor are not stated in the grounds of appeal regarding the case claiming an attachment order, and even if ex officio examination is conducted, this part

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc.