The judgment below

The part of the request for attachment order shall be reversed.

For a person who has requested an attachment order, location tracking shall be five years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing (unfair sentencing with respect to the Defendant’s case) of the Defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for a period of one year, six months, and forty hours, and an order to disclose or notify personal information for three years, confiscation, and collection) is unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable to dismiss the instant request for the attachment order even if the Defendant and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are likely to recommit a sexual crime, even though they are likely to recommit a sexual crime.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal 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 as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty. In our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation regarding

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 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 on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable to the sentencing of the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of and against the offense; and (b) agreed with the victim E of an indecent act committed by force, are already determined in the lower court; and (c) the Defendant was punished twice the same kind of punishment of the law.