The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

To order the defendant to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

Punishment of the crime

On December 11, 2013, the Defendant, a organized violence organization, was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor by the Seoul Western District Court for the crime of conflict, etc., and was pending in the appellate trial on May 11, 2014, the Defendant was released from the Incheon District Court on May 11, 2014. On June 12, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor by the said appellate court at the Seoul Western District Court, which became final and conclusive on June 20, 2014.

In addition, on October 17, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment by the Seoul Western District Court for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 26, 2015.

The number of days of detention on May 11, 2014, while the appellate court of the case, including the crime of conflict, was pending in the court of appeal, and the defendant was already released from the court of revocation of detention for eight months, which is sentenced to the first instance court, but the execution of the sentence is premised on the confirmation of the judgment. As such, the execution of the sentence should be deemed to have been completed only on June 20, 2014, which became final and conclusive.

On October 17, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the punishment of violence, etc. at the Seoul Western District Court on March 26, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 26, 2015. However, the date and time of the crime is before June 20, 2014, which is the date the above judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, there is no ex post concurrent relationship with the instant crime.

In addition, the indictment of the 2016 High 2016 High 175 case does not contain the facts of aggravated criminal records of repeated crimes and the provisions of the applicable law.

However, even if the facts of the criminal record of the criminal defendant, which is the reason for aggravated repeated crimes, do not constitute criminal facts, but merely constitute the reason for sentencing, it can be tried and judged even if not stated in the indictment. Even if the provision applicable to the aggravation of repeated crimes is not stated in the indictment, the court may ex officio punish the criminal as a repeated offense by applying it (see Supreme Court Decisions 71Do2004, Dec. 21, 1971; 2015Do6147, Jul. 9, 2015).