Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for five years and for eight years, respectively.

. Defendants:

A. Although the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) have attempted to engage in a sexual intercourse against the victim’s will, the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant A”) did not inserting the sexual organ.

In addition, there is no fact that the defendant conspired with the defendant B or shared the act of execution with the defendant B, so it cannot be viewed as a joint crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B) Improper sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

C) The crime of unfair quasi-rape of an disclosure and notification order is committed in an attempted attempt, and there is a risk of the Defendant’s recidivism and recidivism of sexual crime.

Considering the fact that it is impossible to readily conclude, it is unfair to order the court below to disclose and notify the defendant's information for a period of five years, even though there are special circumstances for not disclosing the defendant's personal information.

D) Although there is no risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crimes against the defendant, it is unreasonable for the lower court to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of 20 years.

2) Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts, etc. (1) The victim was in a state of mental or physical loss or impossibility of resistance at the time of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special quasi-rape)

There is no fact that the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim jointly with the defendant A.

(2) The Defendant committed a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children’s Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (comprehion) and did not have sexual intercourse with the victim after suppressing the victim’s resistance, by committing sound to the resistanceed victim.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all charges of special quasi-rape and rape. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The defendant commits a similar act in the written reason for appeal.