The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

The defendant is a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours.

Ex officio decision (as to the defendant's case), the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the bill of amendment to a bill of amendment, which is identical to the facts charged for the defendant's violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, in the trial below, and this court permitted the amendment. This part of the judgment below should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to the remaining facts of crime as stated in the judgment below and concurrent crimes as stated in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the defendant's case in the judgment below cannot be maintained

However, among the judgment below, there are reasons for reversal as above in the part of the defendant case.

Even if such changes are irrelevant to the reasons for the reversal of the indictment, the changed part is irrelevant to the facts of the request for the attachment order.

The argument of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles of the person who requested the attachment order on the part of the claim for attachment order is still justified and it is subject to the judgment of this court.

Judgment on the grounds for appeal (as to the case of request for attachment order)

A. misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal: The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the risk of recidivism or by misapprehending the risk of recidivism in requesting the attachment order, in light of the fact that the person requesting the attachment order is in violation of the depth of the person requesting the attachment order.

B. 1) The summary of the ground for the request for the attachment order of this case is that a person under the age of 19 who has a intellectual disability as indicated in the judgment below is likely to recommit a sexual crime in light of the background, environment, sexual conduct, frequency of the crime, etc. of the person under the age of 19 as indicated in the judgment below.

2) The lower court is so decided.