The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

For a period of 10 years, disclosed information on the accused.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, ten years of disclosure and notification order, and ten years of attachment order) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") continuously used the ageed victim as the object of sexual assault for more than five years, and even in light of the content of the crime, it is anticipated that mental suffering from the crime of this case was easily expected that the victim suffered from sexual humiliation and a sense of sexual humiliation (the victim stated that he had suffered from such sexual assault whenever he was sexually abused from the defendant). Considering the fact that the victim had been the most emotional honored time when he was the victim at the time when he was committing the crime of this case, it is difficult to recover the mental suffering from such act.

Considering the above point, although the defendant should be punished with strict punishment, the sentencing of the court below is too unfair in light of all the factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments including the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, circumstance after the crime, etc., and the fact that the defendant is aware of all the facts of the crime from the beginning of the investigation (as to the confession of the defendant in sexual assault crime, due consideration should be given to the sentencing should be given), that there is no criminal history prior to the crime of this case, and that the father of the victim wants to take the action against the defendant, and that the father of the victim wants to take the action against the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

3. As long as the Defendant filed an appeal regarding the part of the Defendant’s request for attachment order, the Defendant is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. The grounds for reversal as to the Defendant’s case, which is the main case, are as follows.