The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

The seized mobile phone(TMphone, Samsung Smartphone, and gallon) is jum.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower court is too inappropriate.

B. The lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant is unfair to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal specified in the grounds for appeal, inasmuch as there is no risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crime committed by the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”), the lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of ten years (the defense counsel’s opinion, etc. submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal).

A. The crime of this case, which judged the illegality of sentencing, requires strict punishment against the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant invaded upon his residence at night and raped the victim and taken the process of committing the crime using his mobile phone; and (b) the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the method and content of the crime; and (c) degree of damage, etc.

However, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, since it is recognized that the defendant's punishment is too unreasonable, considering the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and result of the crime, conditions for sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, criminal conduct, motive of the crime, means and result, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, etc.

B. Determination 1 on the argument that the attachment order is unfair, the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime under Article 5(1) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Devices Attachment, Etc. (hereinafter “Electronic Devices Attachment Act”) is insufficient solely on the possibility of recidivism, and it is highly probable that the person who requests the attachment order may destroy the legal peace by committing a sexual crime again in the future.