The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The information on the accused shall be disclosed for a period of five years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape), the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have a sexual intercourse with the victim C.

With regard to the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Coercive Act, etc.), the defendant did not encourage the victim to engage in sexual traffic, and only he did so voluntarily.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted all of the charges falling under each of the above crimes on the grounds of the statements made by the victim without credibility. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and unreasonable.

C. It is unreasonable to order the court below to disclose and notify the defendant's information for five years, even though there are special circumstances that may not disclose the defendant's personal information of the improper defendant's disclosure order.

It is unfair that the court below issued an employment restriction order to the defendant for five years against child and juvenile-related institutions, etc.

E. It is unreasonable that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years, although there is no risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crime against the defendant who was improper in issuing an attachment order.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the assaulter’s charge against the Victim K is a case that has instigated a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed intent of the victim under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the records, the above victim can be acknowledged the fact that he/she expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the defendant on May 29, 2018, which was before the judgment of the court below was rendered, after the prosecution of this case was instituted.