The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: Sentencing unfair sentencing: The punishment (one and half years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, etc.) imposed by the court below on the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order or the person who requested the order to observe the protective order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") is too unfluent and unfair.

It is unfair that the court below dismissed the defendant's request for attachment order and request for surveillance order even though the defendant's request for attachment order and request for protective observation order are recognized to pose a risk of recidivism.

Judgment

The sentencing of the defendant's case on the basis of the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors on the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

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). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as an element of sentencing in the trial at the trial of a party are already revealed in the hearing of the lower court, or there is no other change of circumstances in matters that are conditions of sentencing after the pronouncement of the judgment of the lower court.

The circumstances in which the court below was the grounds for sentencing, and the age, sex and environment of the defendant, and motives and crimes.