The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

(b) the defendant;

1. The court below rendered a judgment of conviction against the accused case and dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the request for attachment order.

As the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") have appealed to this, the part regarding the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no benefit in appeal.

2. The sentence imposed by the lower court (seven years of imprisonment and seven years of employment restriction) is too unreasonable.

3. Ex officio determination

A. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, on April 3, 2003, the Defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment with prison labor for special robbery, etc. by the Seoul High Court on the same day, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the same day. On March 28, 2018, the Suwon District Court rendered a two-year sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Sungnam branch of the Suwon District Court, and became final and conclusive on April

However, since the instant crime committed on August 19, 2002 and the instant crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for which judgment became final and conclusive, there was a final and conclusive judgment on the said special robbery, etc., one of them could not be sentenced to a single sentence upon a judgment

Nevertheless, the court below applied Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act by deeming the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of this case as concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles in the part of the

B. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) does not exceed sexual crimes under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or sex offenses against children and juveniles under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.