The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the following: (a) there is no high possibility that a criminal defendant would commit a second offense; (b) there is a great obstacle to the defendant’s occupation; (c) the defendant did not commit a crime against children or juveniles; and (d) the defendant’s crime is not limited to his/her neighboring residence; and (c) it seems that the effect of prevention from disclosure or notification is not significant due to such disclosure or notification order is not significant, ordering the defendant to disclose and notify personal information for three

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months for the crime of intrusion at the Jung-gu District Court on September 12, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 21, 2017, and the Defendant was released from the custody upon revocation of detention on November 19, 2016 while he was under detention. The lower court deemed each of the of the of the of the instant crimes as a repeated crime and aggravated repeated crimes by applying Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

However, since the execution of punishment is based on the premise of the final judgment, the defendant was released from prison on November 19, 2016 by revocation of detention.

Even if this cannot be said to be the termination of the execution of imprisonment without prison labor, and the execution of the above imprisonment with prison labor was terminated only after the judgment against the defendant was made on February 21, 2017.

Since each of the crimes of this case is committed prior to the completion of the execution of imprisonment due to the above intrusion, it does not constitute a repeated crime.

Nevertheless, the court below determined punishment for aggravated repeated crimes. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on repeated crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Conclusion.