The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment (the imprisonment of three years and six months, the disclosure and notification order four years, and the attachment order six years) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order and the person who requested the order to observe the protective order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

Since there are special circumstances that may not disclose or notify the personal information of the criminal defendant in violation of the disclosure or notification order, the court below's order to disclose or notify the personal information is unfair.

The prosecutor of the part of the case for the attachment order and the protective observation order stated that the prosecutor requests the preliminary observation order on the date of the first trial of the court below (39 pages of the public trial record). It is unreasonable for the court below to order the attachment of a location tracking device even though the defendant does not pose a risk to repeat sexual crimes again.

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

As to the judgment on the part of the case of this case, each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant and the prosecutor with respect to each of the following facts: (a) the defendant committed similar rape or coercions over 25 times for about 8 months, such as having a woman living together (14 years old), by taking the victim (14 years old), who is his/her father, as a target for his/her own sexual desire, into consideration the crime of this case; (b) the nature of the crime and the method of committing the crime, are very poor; (c) the victim, who is to be able to lead to the view of Korea and the formation of proper sexual values, suffered a big mental or physical pain due to each of the crimes of this case; and (d) the defendant has a history of criminal punishment on several occasions due to the violation of the Narcotics Control Act and the gambling crime, etc., against the defendant.

However, all of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant, and the defendant has reached an agreement with the victim at the time of the trial, and the mother of the victim also wanted to have the preference of the defendant again in the trial.