Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. for Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning attachment order is excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to restrict employment for five years at child and juvenile-related institutions, etc.

3. Determination

A. It is recognized that the defendant's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing recognizes the crime of this case, repents his mistake and reflects his mistake, and that the defendant has no criminal power.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the victim, who first appeared in the drinking place by the defendant, was sexual intercourse with the emergency stairs of the first floor of the commercial building by taking advantage of the state of the victim's refusal to resist himself, and led the victim again to another place, suppression and rape by assault, etc., and the nature of the crime is not very good in light of the circumstance, method and result of the crime, etc., even though the victim was aware of considerable mental suffering and suffering due to the crime of this case, it did not receive a letter from the victim or did not reach an agreement until the trial at the trial, and it is difficult to view that there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below, and that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and the conditions of the punishment of this case as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.