The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years and suspension of qualifications for one year.

For seized co-ownership.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the case committed by the lower court against the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”), which was sentenced to the punishment (seven years of imprisonment and one year of qualification suspension), is too unreasonable.

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to disclose and notify personal information for a period of five years.

B. The lower court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device to the Defendant for a period of 20 years is unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Part 1 of the case where the attachment order is requested. The defendant committed a sexual crime on two or more occasions as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, and there is a risk of recommitting a sexual crime.

2) The term “risk of recidivism of a sexual crime” under Article 5(1) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. means that the possibility of recidivism is insufficient solely on the possibility of recidivism, and that the person requesting an attachment order has a high probability of undermining legal peace by committing a sexual crime again in the future.

The existence of the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime shall be objectively determined by comprehensively assessing various circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the person against whom the attachment order was requested, the motive and means of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the situation after the crime. Such a determination shall be based on the time of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, 2010 Do444, Dec. 9, 2010, etc.). In light of such legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case are considered as follows: (i) there was no record of committing the sexual crime before the sexual crime of this case; and (ii) there was no record of committing the sexual crime of this case against many unspecified persons; and (iii) the defendant’s assessment of the risk of recidivism of a Korean sexual offender (K.).