The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

The information on the accused shall be disclosed for a period of five years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part on defendant's case: The lower court's imprisonment (one year of imprisonment and five years of disclosure and notification) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

B. The part of the case for which the request for the attachment order was filed is that the person subject to the request for the attachment order committed a sexual crime, and the degree of assault and intimidation at the time of the sexual crime is not much serious, and thus, the person subject to the request for the attachment order does not have the risk of recidivism of the sexual crime, and the period of the attachment order for

2. Determination

A. As the appellate court did not submit new data on sentencing favorable to the defendant in regard to the allegation of unfair sentencing, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to those of the lower court.

In the court below, the defendant, who recognized the crime itself and argued some of the reasons, did not dispute in the appellate court, and did not receive a letter of request, although he tried to receive a letter of request from the victims.

It is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentencing conditions have been changed meaningfully in the appellate court solely by endeavoring to obtain such reflectivity and a letter.

In light of all the factors cited by the lower court as the reasons for sentencing and all the sentencing factors revealed in the appellate court’s trial, the lower court’s sentence (the lower court’s order of restriction on employment should be determined only after the enforcement of relevant laws after the issuance of the lower judgment) is not too heavy to the extent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion of the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the wrongful assertion on the attachment order, it is consistent with the reasoning of the lower judgment’s judgment that found the “risk of recidivism of sexual crimes in the market” in the fourth part of the judgment.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances of recognition, the Defendant committed a sex crime again in the future.