All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of the case of the defendant (the defendant, the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order) are provided with this.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

The lower court’s sentencing (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with 5 years of imprisonment and 300,000 won, and 80 hours of 80 hours) against the Defendant is so unreasonable that the above sentencing is too uneasible and unfair (the prosecutor). (b) Considering the fact that the Defendant, who filed a request for an attachment order (the prosecutor) was under suspension of execution due to a violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse against Sexual Abuse against the past, there is a risk that the Defendant may recommit a sexual assault crime due to the recidivism of a sexual crime.

Since the court below's dismissal of the request for attachment order is unfair.

2. The determination of sentencing on the part of the case of the defendant is based on the statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, is the first sentence against the Defendant.