The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

With respect to the person against whom the attachment order is requested, it shall be for ten years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant case (1) The sentence (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

(2) Although there are special circumstances under which disclosure or notification of personal information should not be disclosed or notified to the illegal defendant of the disclosure or notification order, it is improper for the court below to order the defendant to disclose or notify personal information.

B. It is improper for the court below to issue an attachment order to the defendant who does not pose a risk of recidivism, and it is improper for the court below to find out that the defendant completed 80 hours of sexual assault treatment programs without complying with relevant provisions.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below ex officio determination, the following facts are established: ① the crime of rape injury by the defendant committed on May 19, 2007; ② the crime under the above judgment was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and six months at Seoul High Court on October 5, 2007; ② the crime of robbery committed by the defendant on January 17, 2007; ② the crime of rape committed by the defendant on May 10, 2013; ② the crime of rape was sentenced to a imprisonment of five years at Seoul High Court on May 21, 2013; ③ the crime under the above judgment at the time the second judgment was declared final and conclusive; ③ the crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act was established, respectively.

However, since the crime of this case committed on June 15, 2006, which was before each of the above judgments became final and conclusive, and is in the concurrent relationship between each of the above final and conclusive judgments and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of this case shall be determined by taking into account equity with the case of concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39(1)

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the instant crime and the first final and conclusive judgment.