The judgment below

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

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

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the part of the Defendant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (limited to the suspended sentence of two years and six years of imprisonment, 40 hours of sexual assault therapy, and 3 years of personal information disclosure notification) is too unfasible and unfair.

B. It is improper to dismiss a defendant's request to attach an attachment order in light of the criminal defendant's nature of the part of the request for attachment order.

2. Determination

A. There are circumstances that the part of the defendant's case is divided in depth into the defendant's mistake, there is no past history of criminal punishment, and that the defendant's punishment is not wanting to be punished in the victim's side by mutual agreement with the victim.

However, on the other hand, the crime of this case is difficult to view that the criminal liability of this case is light in light of the circumstances of the crime and the object of the crime, since the defendant requested the victim, who is the student of the fifth grade of elementary school, to charge the cell phone, and entered the victim's house together and forced the victim to commit the crime.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, means and consequence of a crime, etc., the lower court’s suspended execution of imprisonment without ordering the Defendant to be put on probation is deemed to be somewhat unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is reasonable.

B. The lower court dismissed the prosecutor’s request for an attachment order against the specific crime case of this case by issuing a suspended sentence to the Defendant. Although the legislative enactment of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders was amended on December 18, 2012 to “the Act on the Probation, Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders,” the lower court stated the expulsion before the amendment, but Article 9(4)4 of the Act on the Probation, Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.