The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order.

B. Prosecutor 1) Unless there are special circumstances that the lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable, and thus, should not disclose the personal information of the Defendant and the person subject to the request for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), it is unreasonable that the lower court did not issue an order to disclose and notify the information to the Defendant.

3. It is unreasonable that the court below dismissed the request for the attachment order of this case, even though the defendant committed a sexual crime against a person who has a physical or mental disability and is at risk of repeating the crime.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant case part 1) The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is deemed unfair, considering the fact that the Defendant, as a driver assisting the Defendant in the victim’s pain, has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of his physical or mental disability and has committed an indecent act against the victim who has physical or mental disability by force, and the nature of the offense is not good. However, the strict punishment against the Defendant is required. However, the Defendant’s mistake is divided, the Defendant does not have the same criminal record, the Defendant does not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim, and other conditions of sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s above assertion is reasonable, and the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion has no merit. 2) The lower court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s disclosure of the order and the order was based on the adopted evidence.