All the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 120 hours.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In addition, the punishment (nine years of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below of the defendant's case against the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is too unreasonable.

The court below's order to attach an electronic tracking device is improper for the defendant to whom the request for attachment order is filed.

The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

Before determining the grounds for appeal on the part of the defendant's case, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the date and time of the crime under Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010), was determined by applying the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 201). However, the court below set the upper limit of imprisonment on the premise that the main sentence of Article 42

Therefore, since the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the application of law to the part of the defendant's case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, this part cannot be maintained.

The risk of recidivism of a sexual crime under Article 5(1) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders in the part of the request for an attachment order refers to a lack of sufficient possibility of recidivism, and it is highly probable that the person subject to the request for an attachment order may injure the legal peace by committing a sexual crime again in the future. The existence of the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime means the occupation and environment of the person subject to the request for attachment order, the criminal conduct prior to the relevant crime, the motive, means, circumstances after the crime, the outline of the crime, etc., should be objectively determined by comprehensively assessing various circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the person subject to

[See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, 2010Do444, Dec. 9, 2010, etc.] The foregoing legal doctrine is acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court.