1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six years;

3. Sexual assault against the defendant for 120 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment (seven years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the frequency and contents of the instant crime, a public prosecutor, who committed a sexual crime against a person who has committed a sexual crime on at least two occasions and is recognized as having a mental disability, is likely to recommit a sexual crime.

Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case on the grounds that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant is in danger of recidivism solely based on the circumstances indicated in its holding. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recidivism

2. An ex officio public prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with regard to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (as well as the fact that there is a reason to place an order to attach an electronic device) among the facts charged in the instant case to the facts charged in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the case is changed by this court

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders without examining the above grounds for appeal, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

【The grounds for appeal 【The facts constituting the crime and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court, and summary of the evidence, the purpose of which is to protect and educate the disabled, as stated in Articles 2 through 4 of the lower judgment.”