The part of the defendant's case against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

A. misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) cannot be punished as a joint crime on the ground that there was no misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the attempted special quasi-rape of this case with B

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty and erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

(c)

It is unfair that the court below ordered the defendant to disclose and notify the information about the defendant for a period of seven years.

(d)

Although the court below did not pose a risk of repeating a crime against the defendant, it is unfair that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device and determined the restriction on outing due to the matters to be observed.

2. Determination

A. In order to constitute “where two or more persons jointly commit a crime under Article 299 of the Criminal Act” under Article 4(3) and Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes to determine the misunderstanding of the facts and the legal doctrine, the Defendants conspired to commit an act of commission and shared the act of commission. However, if the joint commission of a crime leads to a mutual agreement with each other, and there was a comprehensive or individual communication or perception with regard to the criminal intent, a conspiracy relationship is established, and if there was a mutual agreement with each other, it is recognized that the act of commission was shared if there was a cooperative relationship in time and place at a time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do4618, Jun. 9, 2016). In full view of the circumstances in the judgment below, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of attempted special quasi-rape.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant BA and the victim who was used in a building corridor by drinking alcohol is discovered.