Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the Defendant and the requester for the attachment order, and the requester for the protective order (hereinafter “Defendant”) by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, etc.”) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The court below dismissed the prosecutor’s claim regarding the case of the attachment order application, and accepted the prosecutor’s claim regarding the case of the protective observation order.

In this regard, the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the defendant's case on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

On the other hand, as long as the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the defendant's case, the prosecutor's request for attachment order is deemed to have been filed with respect to the case of the request for attachment order under Articles 21-8 and 9 (8) of the Act on the Attachment, etc. of Electronic Devices, and the defendant's request for attachment order and the request for protection observation order are also included in the subject of this court's trial.

3. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the Defendant case, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the punishment by fully taking into account the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and there is no special change in circumstances that may be assessed differently from the conditions of sentencing of the lower court up to the trial.

In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the Defendant’s crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is excessively heavy or minor, beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of sentencing is without merit.

B. As seen earlier, the claim for attachment order is examined.