The part of the crime No. 1 and the judgment of the court below No. 2 in the judgment of the court below among the defendant of the first judgment.

Defendant

(b).

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") are too unreasonable to be sentenced to the punishment [the punishment of the first instance judgment: three years of imprisonment (the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below) and two months of imprisonment (the crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court below), 80 hours of orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs, 5 years of employment restriction orders, and 2 months of the judgment of the court below] of the defendant.

(1) The first original judgment decision against the defendant who was found to be unfair in sentencing is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the prosecutor’s request for an attachment order even if the Defendant’s rejection of the request for attachment order was highly likely to repeat the crime.

The judgment of the court below was rendered on the Defendant’s ex officio determination on the first and second crimes in the judgment of the court below among the Defendant’s first and the second judgment. The Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below against all of the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the first and second judgment.

The court decided to concurrently examine the appeal case, and the defendant's crime of the part concerning the first instance judgment and the second instance judgment among the defendant's case of the first instance judgment against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part concerning the first instance judgment among the defendant's case of the first instance judgment and the second instance judgment cannot be maintained as they are.

The first and the second judgment of the court below on the defendant's first and the second judgment on the judgment of the court below are reversed ex officio. Thus, without examining the defendant's and the prosecutor's improper assertion on sentencing, they shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is reasonable to respect the sentencing condition in comparison with the first instance court on the determination of the illegality of sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor as to the part of the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance among the defendant case of the first instance, and to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where the sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015 July 2015).