Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal and the person against whom the attachment order is requested (hereinafter “defendants”) asserts that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment as to the part of the defendant's case (each assertion of unfair sentencing), and where the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The grounds alleged by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as a sentencing factor are already discovered in the proceedings of the lower court’s pleadings, 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 with the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

Although the defendant recognized all of the mistakes including a part of the indecent act denied by the court below in this court, it is difficult to regard it as a ground to change the sentence of the court below.

Considering the circumstances that the lower court rendered on the grounds of sentencing comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, all of the conditions of sentencing as well as the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or unreasonable, as it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing are without merit.

B. If a prosecutor partly claims an attachment order filed an appeal against a prosecuted case, the prosecutor is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the case claiming an attachment order pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, Etc., but the petition of appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the prosecutor are