The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (i) The defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant"): The defendant's misunderstanding of facts: although there is a fact that the defendant delivered the victim's sound records, the defendant did not contain his/her fingers during his/her sexual period.

Shed Sentencing: The sentence of the court below (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (i) the sentencing of the Defendant’s part of the case is unfair: the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

The lower court’s dismissal of the request for the attachment order of this case would lead to a judgment on the risk of recidivism.

2. The prosecutor ex officio conducted the following facts: (a) the name of the crime of rape in the part of the similar rape in the trial in the “violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the minor under the age of 13)” is “a similar rape by the minor”; (b) Articles 7(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes are “Articles 305 and 297-2 of the Criminal Act”; (c) Articles 7(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Article 298 of the Criminal Act are “a indecent act by the minor,” and (d) Articles 7(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Article 305 and 298 of the Criminal Act are no more than 9 of the Criminal Act’s amendment of the Criminal Act’s provisions concerning the punishment of the minor, and Article 9(2) of the Act’s amendment to the indictment.”

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake still exists in this court.