The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case, even though the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the defendant”) are likely to repeat a crime.

2. Determination

A. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below on the accused case, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Circumstances a prosecutor asserts as an element of sentencing in this court are already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, or the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment. There is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines and the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

In full view of the circumstances indicated by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant arguments and records, and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is too unjustifiable, given that it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. The lower court’s judgment as to the claim for attachment order: (a) the following circumstances revealed by the record, namely, ① the Defendant did not have a previous sexual offense before the instant case; (b) the overall background of the instant crime appears to be contingent crimes; and (c) the assessment result by the Korea risk assessment method for the Defendant’s sexual offender (K-STRAS) constitutes either the intermediate (7 to 12) or the high (13 points (13 to 29 points). However, it is high.