The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is the sentencing of the lower court (an order to disclose and notify personal information between five years and five years, and an order to attach an electronic tracking device and an order to attach an electronic device for compliance for ten years) that is unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition to these circumstances, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto and aesthetic nature, 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 discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion and 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 person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”), on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning, given the fact that the Defendant suffered from an indecent act by the victim and did not receive any injury from the victim.