The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the substance of the grounds for appeal in this case, the background of the instant crime, the family environment of the Defendant, the health of the Defendant, etc.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for the change of indictment, the prosecutor ex officio examined the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (1) of the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor made an application for the change of indictment in Article 5-2 (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 288 (1) of the Criminal Act, "Article 288 (1) of the "the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes", and Article 288 (1) of the "the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes", and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more because the

B. Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes Relating to Cumulative Offense (hereinafter “Specialized Crimes Act”) provides that “In the event a specific violent crime is committed again within three years after having been sentenced to punishment for a specific violent crime, the punishment shall be aggravated by up to twice the maximum or minimum period of the punishment specified for the crime,” and Article 2(1) provides that “specific violent crime subject to the Specialized Crimes Act” shall be listed. As such, the court shall punish the defendant who has been sentenced to a violent crime listed in Article 2 of the Specialized Crimes Act and again committed such violent crime within three years after the execution of the punishment is completed or exempted, and shall punish him/her as being subject to a repeated crime under Article 3 of the Specialized Crimes Act, not Article 35 of the Criminal Act. In the event that the prosecutor indicted the defendant and stated the applicable provisions for the repeated Offense in the indictment in Article 35 of the Criminal Act, the prosecutor shall not be subject to challenge.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1556 delivered on May 14, 2004). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant is punished for sexual crimes and victim protection in the women's branch court of Suwon District Court on May 26, 2006.