The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

. against the Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the case by Defendant 1) The toilets indicated in the facts charged against the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) invaded by the public prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts as to the acquittal portion) (hereinafter “instant toilets”) constituted “public toilets, etc.” under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which are installed so that many unspecified main customers can use.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on a different premise.

2) The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime with mental and physical weakness, was in a state of mental and physical weakness, but the lower court did not recognize it and did not reduce the mental and physical weakness.

B) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. There is a risk that the defendant in part of the case of an attachment order may recommit a sexual crime.

Even though it is difficult to conclude it, the court below's order to attach an electronic tracking device to the defendant is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on this part of the facts charged, on the ground that it is difficult to view that the instant toilets constitute “public toilets, etc.” as prescribed in Article 2 of the Public Toilets, etc. Act.

The following circumstances, i.e., the location of the toilet in the first floor of the building in Jeju City, including the definition, specific contents, structure, and the background of the enactment of the above law, as prescribed by the Act on Public Toilets, Etc., as well as the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below:

Internal points, ② The installation entity of the toilet in this case is the main agent of the above establishment.