1. The part of the judgment below on the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

. against the Defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is too uneasible and unfair.

In the part of the request for attachment order, the period of attachment of an electronic tracking device, which the court below sentenced to the defendant, is too unfair.

Judgment

According to the records of this case as to the part of the defendant's case, the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for forced indecent acts, etc. by the Daegu District Court on March 17, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive August 11, 2017. As such, in relation to the crime of indecent acts, etc. for which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of this case is concurrent crimes by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the defendant shall be sentenced to punishment after considering equity in cases where judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below, which did not take such measures, was

In full view of the fact that the judgment of the court below regarding the part regarding the claim for attachment order of this case, along with the motive, background, means and consequence of the sexual assault crime of this case, the Defendant’s attitude before and after the crime, etc., and the attachment order of this case and the attachment order of this case should be executed successively with the attachment order of this case, the court below’s determination that set the attachment period of three years within the attachment period of not less than one year but not more than ten years pursuant to Article 9(1)3 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders, is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's ground of appeal disputing the attachment period is without merit.

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing since there is a ground for reversal as above.