1. The part of the judgment below on the defendant is reversed.

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

. against the Defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are aware of the fact or misunderstanding of legal principles (related to 2017 Gohap 7) and the defendant paid 30,000 won in return for drinking on the day of the appeal, and only drinking together with M, and there is no similar act by paying the price.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of sexual traffic against M in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant was unable to attend the examination procedure of M in the court of original instance, and the perusal or duplication of the trial record was refused, but the duplication was refused. Thus, the court of original instance and the trial record in which M's statement is recorded shall not be deemed as evidence of guilt.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged based on M’s statement. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions of the sentencing case, the sentence imposed by the court below (the disclosure and notification of personal information between five years and five years) is too unreasonable.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the above sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

It is unreasonable that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years.

Judgment

In the lower court’s determination as to whether there was a misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the part of the Defendant’s case, the Defendant argued to the same effect as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court paid KRW 30,000 to M and ordered M to do so.