The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

information about the defendant for five years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court for the part of the Defendant’s case (hereinafter “Defendant’s case”) (hereinafter “Defendant’s case”) is too unreasonable.

(2) The lower court’s judgment ordering the Defendant to attach a location tracking device is unfair in light of the following: (a) the Defendant and the person subject to the request for an attachment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) under continuous mental and medical treatment; (b) the risk of recidivism was significantly reduced; and (c) the degree of damage was minor; and (d) the ten-year attachment period ordered by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (the Defendant case part)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal as to the part of the Defendant’s case ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal as to the part of the Defendant’s case, the Prosecutor changed the name of the instant crime into “indecent injury”, “Article 297 of the Criminal Act” from among the applicable provisions of the instant case to “Article 298 of the Criminal Act”, and applied for changes in the contents of the facts charged under paragraph (1) from among the facts charged in the instant case, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission. Meanwhile, since each of the instant crimes was concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower court’s judgment rendered a single sentence as to it, the part of the Defendant’s case cannot be maintained any longer.

In addition, in the case of destroying the part of the defendant's case, the part concerning the case for attachment order which must be tried together with the same and sentenced simultaneously cannot be reversed.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the argument about the defendant's request for attachment order is still subject to the judgment of this court.