The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, five years of disclosure and notification order, three years of attachment order, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device, although the Defendant did not pose a risk of recommitting a sexual crime.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The defendant's decision on the grounds of unfair sentencing and unfair appeal against an attachment order shall be made ex officio prior to the judgment.

B. Article 35 of the Criminal Act provides that a repeated crime shall be imposed on a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment and has committed an offense equivalent to or more than imprisonment without prison labor within three years after the completion of or exemption from such punishment. Even if imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment became final and conclusive, an offense committed when such punishment has not been completed may not be subject to aggravation of repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do881, Feb. 29, 2008). Whether a repeated crime constitutes a repeated crime under Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act can not be determined based on the date of release, not on the expiration of the term of punishment, rather than on the expiration of the term of punishment, and it may be recognized that a repeated crime was committed within three years after the expiration of the term of punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6451, Nov. 24, 2006).