The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

The information on the accused shall be disclosed for a period of seven years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the part of the Defendant case, the lower court erred in sentencing and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “defendant”).

2) It is unreasonable that the lower court issued the 10-year public disclosure and notification order and the 10-year employment restriction order and the 10-year employment restriction order and the 10-year public disclosure and notification order.

B. As to the part of the request for attachment order, the lower court’s issuance of an attachment order to the Defendant who did not pose a high risk of repeating a sexual crime is unlawful, and the period of the attachment order (15 years) is also unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The part of the defendant's case: 1) The main circumstances to be considered in sentencing in the instant case are as follows. Each of the crimes of this case is that the defendant, an adult, committed a virtual sexual act against the victim under the age of 12 on the Internet hosting three times, along with sexual intercourse. The details and methods of the crime, the frequency of the crime, and the victim's age (12 years of age) do not constitute a ground for sentencing a minor's constructive rape under the premise that the victim is a minor under the age of 13. However, in the case of a minor's constructive rape under the premise that the victim is a minor under the age of 13, a serious penalty may be imposed (in the case of a child's coercion, intermediary, sexual harassment, etc., a heavy penalty may be imposed.

In light of the age difference between the defendant and the defendant, the nature of the crime is very bad.

A victim whose sexual identity and values are not yet formed has suffered from physical and mental pain which is difficult to recover due to each of the crimes of this case, and his family seems to have suffered from the shock.

It is clear that the memory of this case will be a serious obstacle to the formation of the victim's right sexual values and self-esteem.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was unable to receive tolerance from the victims and their families, and was also unable to recover their damages.