The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. It is improper for the court below to dismiss the request for attachment order even if the defendant's rejection of the request for attachment order is found to pose a risk of recidivism

C. It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the application for medical treatment and custody even if it recognizes the necessity of medical treatment and the risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Circumstances a prosecutor asserts as an element of sentencing in the trial of a political party are revealed to be circumstances that were discovered in the hearing process of the lower court, or that the lower court has already taken full account of the circumstances in determining the sentence against the Defendant. There is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with the matters subject to sentencing conditions after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.

Taking into account the circumstances indicated by the lower court as the grounds for sentencing, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, consequence, relationship with the victim, and circumstances after the crime, and the scope of sentencing guidelines recommended by the sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is too unreasonable, considering the circumstances where the prosecutor is carrying out within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. The lower court’s determination on the part regarding the Defendant’s claim for attachment order is as follows: ① the Defendant’s total point of 8-10 points (the maximum point of 29 points and the total point of 13 points) as a result of the assessment of risk of a sex offender in Korea (KSOAS) against the Defendant.