The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

40 hours per the defendant.

1. The court below rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the case of the defendant, and on the part of the case of the medical care and custody, where the defendant and the person who applied for the medical care and custody (hereinafter the defendant) are subject to the medical care and custody, and sentenced to dismissal of the prosecutor's request on the part of the case of the attachment order. Since only the defendant appealed, there is no benefit in appeal on the part of the case of

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the case of attachment order among the judgment below is excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant and the part of the

2. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable on the gist of the grounds of appeal.

3. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he had the history of suspending the indictment for the same kind of crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime by forcing the victim under the age of 13 to commit an indecent act, and the nature of the instant crime is not good, the Defendant was aware of considerable mental suffering and suffering from the instant crime, and the Defendant did not receive a letter or reach an agreement from the victim up to the time of the trial, strict punishment against the Defendant is necessary.

However, the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected, and there is no particular criminal history except for the Defendant’s one-time suspension of indictment, and the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental and physical weakness due to delay in the spirit of serious symptoms as a person with disabilities with intellectual disability 2 degree 2, and the Defendant seems to have not received appropriate education necessary to prevent recidivism even after the previous suspension of indictment was revoked, and the Defendant is also similar to the instant crime on July 2015.