Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for the instant attachment order, even if the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s dismissal of the request for the instant attachment order even if the Defendant’s dismissal of attachment

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the fact that there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant was the age of 19 years old at the time of committing the crime, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant left the victim 13 years of age as soon as he gets into the passenger car and the nature of the crime is significant, and that the defendant did not agree with the victim.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s criminal history, character and conduct, home environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too adequate and too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the public prosecutor’s argument regarding the prosecutor’s attachment order, such as: (a) the Defendant has no record of punishment for sexual assault crimes; (b) the recognition of and reflects against the instant crime; (c) the awareness that sexual assault was distorted as a result of the public prosecutor’s inspection, and (iv) the fact that social ties are relatively obvious, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant is in danger of recidivism.

In the same purport, the lower court’s dismissal of the request for the attachment order of this case is justifiable.