The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: (a) the lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable; (b) the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are not likely to recommit a sexual crime; and (c) the lower court’s order the attachment of an electronic tracking device is unreasonable.

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

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio (revision of indictment), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the prosecutor changed the term "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.)" to "special intimidation" among the names of the crimes against the defendant, and the applicable provisions of the Act to "Article 3 (1), Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" was applied for permission to change them to "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act", and the subject of the judgment was changed by the court.

On the other hand, the facts charged and the remaining facts charged by the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Ultimately, among the judgment below, the part of the case against the defendant shall be reversed as it cannot be maintained as it is.

3. According to Article 9(5) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders on the part of the case on which a request for attachment order was made (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”), the part on the case on the request for attachment order, which must be examined together with the above, to the extent that there exist grounds for reversal as to the Defendant’s case, shall also be reversed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do5291, 2012 Jeondo112, Jun. 28, 2012, 2012, etc.). 4. As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and thus, on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and prosecutor.