Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the guilty part of the defendant's case against the defendant DN, and the defendant's case against the defendant B.

1. The lower court dismissed the prosecution on the ground that each victim expressed his/her wish not to punish him/her after instituting a prosecution against the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) and each road traffic law among the facts charged against DN by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

In this regard, since the prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissal part of the above indictment, the dismissal part of the indictment was separated and confirmed as it is, and excluded from the scope of the adjudication of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant DN (as to the judgment of the court below Nos. 1, 4, and 5), the sentence of the first, 4, and 5 of the judgment of the court below is deemed to be excessive and unfair. While there is no risk of recidivism among the judgment of the court below of the court below, the personal information is disclosed and notified to the Defendant, and the part ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device is all unjustifiable.

B. The punishment of Defendant B (as against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1, 2, and 3) No. 1, 2, and 3 is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

DO (as to the judgment of the court below No. 4), the 4 original judgment resolution is too unreasonable.

(d)

It is improper to dismiss the request for attachment order from the public prosecutor to disclose and notify personal information even if the first instance court's judgment recognizes the risk of re-offending against Defendant DN and B, all of the punishments sentenced by the lower court in the first, third, and fourth original judgment as to the Defendants.

3. Ex officio decision (the remaining part of the judgment of the court below except for the part against Defendant DO) made a decision to jointly examine all appeals cases of the first to fifth judgment. The judgment of the court below and the facts charged against Defendant B of the first to the first to the first to the second to the second to the second to the third to the second to the third to the second to the second to the second to the third to the third to the contrary are both concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.