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 lower court’s sentencing (a period of 7 years and 40 hours’ imprisonment) of the Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (a period of 7 years and 40 hours’ order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for attachment order since the prosecutor's defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter "the defendant") committed a sexual crime against the disabled person and the risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal is based on the statutory penalty, and the 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, based on the statutory penalty. In our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation regarding

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, 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 sentencing 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 by destroying the judgment of the first instance on the sole basis of the fact that the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion but is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the first instance court, including the first instance court having no criminal history, have already been determined in the lower court and sufficiently taken into account the Defendant’s judgment, and have led to the confession of the offense.