The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) of the judgment of the court below on the defendant's case is too unreasonable.

(2) The Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are unlikely to repeat sexual crimes.

B. The form of the lower judgment by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant case is very bad in that it has sexual intercourse with a female under 12 years of age who lacks the concept or judgment ability of sex, and is therefore very serious in the nature of the crime.

Moreover, the victim shows the symptoms of the mental retardation, and the ability to recognize or judge the victim is more different than that of the victims.

In this case, the victim suffered an injury that is difficult to recover at the time when the sound sexual sense and right sexual values should be formed.

However, the defendant has no criminal power as a youth of 23 years of age.

The confession of the instant crime and the mistake are recognized.

The family members of the defendant are trying to lead his best to prevent the defendant from committing a mistake again.

The father of the defendant found the father of the victim and caused the death of the victim.

In order to recover damage, the court below paid KRW 10 million at the court below, and additionally paid KRW 10 million at the court court.

In the first instance, it was agreed with the victim's side.

In addition, considering the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case and the recommended sentencing range of the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is reasonable, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the Defendant’s assertion regarding the attachment order ex officio prior to judgment.

Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter referred to as the "Electronic Monitoring Act").