1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;

3. Children and juveniles;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable because the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order, the person who requested the attachment order, and the person who requested the order to observe the protective order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to place employment restrictions for a period of five years with children, juvenile-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for the disabled.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the prosecutor examined the part of the facts charged in this court on September 5, 2018 and completed the execution of the sentence in the Ansan Prison on January 17, 2019. On April 3, 2020, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than six months, for indecent acts committed by the Seoul Western District Court on September 5, 2018, and sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two months, for injury, and for not more than three million won for assault and assault committed by the Seoul Central District Court on June 4, 2020.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in that it changed to "," and the applicable law added "Article 37 and Article 39 of the Criminal Act," and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

B. In addition, on January 19, 2021, a prosecutor filed a request with the Defendant for a location tracking device attachment order and protective observation order, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing with the Defendant and the Defendant’s case of the attachment order application and the case of the protective observation order. As seen below, the Defendant’s case of the attachment order application and the case of the protective observation order should be examined together with the Defendant’s case, and the judgment should be rendered simultaneously, and as such, this court’s judgment cannot be maintained any more in this respect since it is the basis for accepting the request of the attachment order

3...