The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

The defendant shall be 120 hours.

Therefore, this part is excluded from the scope of adjudication notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, etc., for the reason that there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part of the request for attachment order, so this part is limited to the part of the case of the judgment below.

2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (such as imprisonment with prison labor for not less than seven years, disclosure and notification order between seven years, etc.) is too unreasonable.

3. We first examine the Defendant’s assertion that the part of the disclosure order and notification order is unfair.

According to the records, the defendant's evaluation of the risk of recidivism at 10 points in total (K-SORAS) is the risk of recidivism at 10 points in total, and the risk of recidivism at 6 points in total as a result of the evaluation of the PC-R (PC-R), which constitutes the risk of recidivism at 6 points in total, and thus the defendant's comprehensive risk of recidivism at 10 points in total is a low level. The crime of this case is found to have been committed based on the personal trust relationship between the defendant and the victim, and is not for many unspecified victims.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, occupation, type of crime, motive, process, result, seriousness of the crime, etc., the degree and expected side effects of the defendant's disadvantage due to the disclosure order or notification order, and the effects of the sex offense against children and juveniles that can be achieved therefrom, the defendant's personal information is subject to the proviso of Article 49 (1) and the proviso of Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.