The judgment below

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

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine years.

80 hours per the defendant.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request for conviction against the accused case and the request for attachment order, and only the accused appealed against this.

Therefore, the part of 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 of appeal.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the original judgment is too unreasonable;

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio shall be made ex officio prior to the judgment.

Article 5(2) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph), Article 298 of the Criminal Act, Article 7(3) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 298 of the Criminal Act, and Article 298 of the Criminal Act shall apply to the date and time of the crime under paragraph (2) of the same crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the upper limit of each punishment shall be governed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; October 16, 2010).

Nevertheless, the lower court applied Articles 5(2) and 7(3) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes on the ground that Articles 5(2) and 7(3) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 17264, May 19, 202; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) and Articles 5(2) and 7(3) of the same Act and Articles 5(2) and 7(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes are identical to the elements and statutory punishment.

4. Since the judgment of the court below on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above in the part of the defendant's case, Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.