The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 160 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment and 160 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) imposed on the Defendant and the person requesting probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is deemed unreasonable and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the prosecutor's request for probation order even though there is a risk that the defendant would recommit sexual crimes.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor shall examine the facts charged in the indictment at the time of the trial, while maintaining the facts charged in the indictment as the primary charges. The prosecutor added the same as the stated facts in the preliminary charges, and added the same as the stated facts in the preliminary charges, and “violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act on Minor, etc. under thirteen Years of Age)” and “Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act on Minor, etc. under thirteen Years of Age)” to the conjunctive applicable provisions, and applied for amendments to the indictment with the content of adding “Article 7(5) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, etc. of Sexual Crimes

However, as seen below, as long as this court rendered a not guilty verdict of the primary facts charged and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged added as preliminary, the judgment of the court below that only the previous primary facts charged can no longer be maintained.

3. Of the judgment below, there are reasons for ex officio reversal due to changes in the indictment as seen earlier.

On the other hand, the part of the judgment below's case of probation order cannot be maintained as it is because there is a difference in the fact that the probation order claim is the cause of claim.

Therefore, the prosecutor's rejection of unfair sentencing and request for probation order is justified.