The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case against which the defendant was convicted and the part of the case for which the request for attachment order was filed, and as such, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part for which the request for attachment order was filed

Therefore, notwithstanding the provision of Article 9(8) of the Electronic Devices Attachment Act, the part of the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (five-year imprisonment, etc.) is unreasonable.

3. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the course of the first instance sentencing trial.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing review, it is reasonable to render a judgment of the first instance court that the sentencing of the first instance is unfair, only in the case where it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) entices a victim for the purpose of indecent act; and (b) did not have the nature of the crime of this case where the Defendant committed an indecent act or similar act against the victim by committing an indecent act with the co-defendants of the lower court; and (c) there was a significant mental shock and suffering of the victim under the age of 14.