Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning attachment order and protective observation order is excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant.

2. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable on the gist of the grounds of appeal.

3. It is recognized that the judgment defendant repents his mistake.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of repeated crime even though he had been tried for the same kind of crime, and the crime of this case is committed again during the period of repeated crime. The crime of this case is committed by the defendant who is not a handler of narcotics, and the defendant administered the crypphone, which is a local mental medicine medicine (hereinafter referred to as the "cypphone"), and attempted to rape the victim at the place where the defendant living together with the female of the defendant and the victim run by using the cypphonephone, and it is not good that the crime is committed. The crime of this case, such as rape, etc. of this case, was committed by the defendant, with considerable mental suffering and pain to the victim. The defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial is held, and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case such as the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and the situation after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the punishment of the court below is too unfair. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.