The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

. against the Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of Defendant 1’s non-disclosure disclosure order: It is unreasonable that the lower court ordered the Defendant to disclose and notify information about the Defendant for a period of five years.

2) Improper sentencing: The lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of ten years.

2. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court below ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal (the part of the case against the defendant), the defendant was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment on November 12, 2004 due to a crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (special robbery, rape, etc.) in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-cheon support on August 16, 2014 and completed the execution of the sentence on August 16, 2014, and the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a similar rape similar to intrusion upon residence) (a special robbery, etc.) within three years thereafter, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a special robbery, etc.) and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a similar rape into residence) constitute a specific violent crime under Article 2 of the Act on

Therefore, even though Article 35 of the Criminal Act provides for the aggravated application of repeated crimes in the indictment, the lower court determined the punishment by applying only Article 35 of the Criminal Act to the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (similar rapes similar to intrusion upon residence) in this case, even though Article 35 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Specific Violence Crimes should be aggravated.

This is due to the misunderstanding of punishment and the misunderstanding of the judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1556, May 14, 2004, etc.). Therefore, the part of the case against the defendant among the judgment below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's person who has a reason for such an ex officio reversal.