The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the inducement of sexual intercourse, the victim first proposed a provisional sexual act, and the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”)

(2) As to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (compact against the disabled), the Defendant was merely a sexual intercourse with the victim and did not know that there was a intellectual disability on the part of the victim at the time of the sex relationship, and thus, the Defendant did not have an intention to have sexual intercourse with the disabled.

3) As to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials), the Defendant taken videos with the consent of the victim for the purpose of using them as evidence in preparation for a later problem even when the Defendant was engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim, so it cannot be deemed that he intentionally produced the child and juvenile pornography. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

C. Although there are special circumstances that may not disclose and notify the personal information of the criminal defendant in violation of the disclosure disclosure order, it is unreasonable for the court below to order the disclosure and notification of the information of the criminal defendant for five years.

It is unfair that the court below's improper order of employment restriction to the defendant for seven years in each of the child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for the disabled.

E. The lower court ordered the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of seven years, although the Defendant was not likely to repeat a sexual crime.