The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a) is unfair because the sentence of imprisonment (a three-year imprisonment, an order to complete sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours, and an order to disclose and notify the three-year period) is too uneasible

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case even if the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are likely to recommit a sexual crime.

2. Determination

A. Determination of unfair sentencing is a discretionary determination based on the statutory penalty that takes into account the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors that constitute the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, there is a unique area for determination of sentencing under Article

In addition, in light of 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 sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on account of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The Defendant’s crime committed is very poor to cause serious mental damage to the victims, and the circumstances asserted in the appellate court by the prosecutor are determined the sentence

Considering the above circumstances and the character, conduct, environment, circumstances, method, etc. of the defendant, the sentencing of the court below is too excessive.