The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a long-term three years of imprisonment, a short-term two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the circumstances leading up to the illegal act of this case’s exemption from disclosure notification order and the method of criminal act, etc., the lower court’s exemption from disclosure and notification order is unreasonable. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too une

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 ex officio is that the Defendant is no longer a juvenile over 19 years of age at the time when the judgment of this court was rendered, and thus, the judgment of the court below which sentenced a non-guilty sentence on the ground of his/her juvenile cannot be maintained as is. 2) The main text of Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018 and enforced June 12, 2019) provides that where the court issues a punishment for sexual crimes (referring to sexual crimes under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or sex crimes against children and juveniles under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse) in the event that the Defendant is sentenced to a punishment for sex crimes (referring to sexual crimes under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and the proviso of the above provision provides that the same shall not apply to cases where the risk of recidivism is

In addition, according to Article 2 of the Addenda to the above Act, the amended provisions of Article 59-3 shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.

This case constitutes a sex offense and simultaneously with the judgment of this case, and simultaneously with the judgment of this case, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. However, the prosecutor's order of disclosure and notification is exempted in the absence of such reasons for ex officio destruction.