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

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to restrict employment for five years at child and juvenile-related institutions, etc.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the defendant's mistake and reflects his own mistake, the defendant has no criminal records of the same kind, and the defendant is a disabled person of Grade III of intellectual disability.

However, the crime of this case is committed in collusion with Co-defendant A, B, and D of the court below, resulting in the injury of the victim by placing the victim, who is a disabled person of Grade II with intellectual disability, in conspiracy with Co-defendant A, B, and D, and carrying dangerous articles for about 12 days, and thereby causing the injury of the victim. It is not good that the crime of this case is committed by assault in collusion with A, and committing the act of inserting the part of head broom loss in the sexual organs of the victim. The crime of this case is serious physical and mental state and suffering of the victim; the defendant knew that he did not receive a letter from the victim or did not reach an agreement; the defendant's age, character and behavior and environment; the motive, means, and result of the crime; and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court after the crime is too unreasonable. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. According to Articles 2 subparag. 2, 3-2, and 56(1) and (2) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018), where a sentence is imposed for a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “sexual Crimes”), which constitutes a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter “sexual offense”), a second offense is to be committed.