In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The sentence of the court below against the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) (hereinafter “the defendant”), is too unreasonable. The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a two-year period and the surcharge for a three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the facts-finding, misunderstanding the legal principles, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant attempted to rape the victim by assaulting and threatening the victim while carrying dangerous objects, and sufficiently recognized the fact that the victim was injured during that process.

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for an attachment order, even if the Defendant, who had committed three times an unfair sexual crime to dismiss the request for an attachment order, once again committed a sexual crime against the victim and thereby recognized the habit.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On May 6, 2016, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at around 17:00 on May 6, 2016, 17:0, put the unexploited volume of the Mepter, which is a local mental medicine, into a disposable injection machine on the part of the victim D (n, 45 years of age) located in Ulsan-gu E-gu, Ulsan-do, and administered the mecopon by taking the mecopon into a single mecopic injection machine; and (b) was discharged from clothes for the victim who had returned to death before 2 months, and was found to have a sexual relation with the victim, but the victim is still under the birth at the time, and the same month has already been in the same month.

4. The head of the household shall be the accused.

In the state where notification was made, the sexual relationship was refused.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) was able to rape the victim; (b) was forced by force from the victim’s clothes; (c) forced the victim to enter the victim’s sexual organ as soon as possible; and (d) on May 7, 2016, around 02:00 and on the same day, continued to cause the victim to have the victim immediately her sexual organ even after he administered the phiphone in the same manner as around 06:00.

On May 7, 2016, the Defendant has the gender of the Defendant at the same place as around 11:00.