Defendant

In addition, both the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) asserted that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendants is too low and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal, and where the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances the Defendants and the prosecutor asserted as sentencing factors in this court are already discovered in the hearing process of the court below, or are sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the Defendants, and there is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with regard to the matters subject to the sentencing conditions after the court below was sentenced.

If the court below comprehensively takes into account the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the conditions of the instant argument and the sentencing specified in the records, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines based on the sentencing guidelines, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the court below’s sentencing against the Defendants was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and cannot be said to be too heavy or unreasonable, considering the circumstances where both parties are on the grounds of appeal.

The Defendants and the prosecutor’s arguments are without merit.

B. As long as a prosecutor partly filed an appeal against the Defendant case, the case is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the case of the request for attachment order pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, Etc., however, the petition of appeal and the grounds for appeal submitted by the prosecutor are not indicated in the grounds for appeal regarding the case of the request for attachment order, and the record is not examined, the reasons for ex officio examination on this part is not found.

3. Conclusion.