The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 120 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are divided into each other and the victim is not subject to punishment for the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment (nine years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) Considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime on an variable or virtual basis, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

(2) Considering the fact that the Defendant in the case involving the attachment order committed a sexual crime of a long time against the victim, it is unlawful for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case even if there is a risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. An ex officio determination prosecutor changes the term “victim’s sheshesheshesheshesheshes” in all facts of the facts charged into “victim’s de facto shesheshesheshesheshes” and “G apartment No. 106 and 1603” in paragraph (1) of the facts charged into “101 and 1603.” As to paragraph (1) of the facts charged, the name of the crime is in violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (indecent act in relation to relatives) and applicable provisions of the Act as “Article 7(2) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; Act No. 298 of the Criminal Act).