The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Sexual assault against the defendant for 40 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a 3 years and 6 months, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor.

Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that a court shall concurrently impose an order to attend a course or order to complete a sexual assault treatment program on a person who has committed a sexual crime, unless there are special circumstances where it is impossible to impose an order to attend a course or order to complete a sexual assault treatment program on the accused for a period not exceeding 500 hours.

In this regard, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of having taken the victim D’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or humiliation against his will by using the mobile phone camera function, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months together with other crimes concurrently related to the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, but did not impose an order to attend a course or order to complete a program under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes. However, even upon examining the reasoning and record of the lower judgment, there is no special circumstance that the Defendant would not impose such order to attend a course or order to complete a program.

Therefore, the court below erred by failing to impose an order to attend a course or order to complete a program in violation of Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and where there is an error of omission in the incidental disposition to be declared simultaneously with the judgment of the court below, it shall be reversed in its entirety (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do12215, Dec. 22, 201).