The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant shall be 40 hours.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the application for attachment order is excluded from the scope of trial of the original court as there is no interest in appeal against the defendant, and only the defendant's case is included in the scope of trial.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

3. The lower court found all of the facts charged of this case guilty.

We examine ex officio whether the defendant's act constitutes an impossible attempt as provided in Article 27 of the Criminal Act. A.

The relevant legal doctrine states that “the victim is in a state of mental or physical disability or impossibility to resist,” and that the victim has sexual intercourse with the victim with the intent to have sexual intercourse by taking advantage of such state, but the victim is not in a state of mental or physical disability or impossibility to resist, it cannot be said that the occurrence of the constituent consequence prescribed in the crime of quasi-rape was impossible from the beginning and that such consequence was actually caused

However, since the defendant commenced the commission of quasi-rape, but the crime did not reach the number, the crime of quasi-rape is established.

In addition, since there is a risk that the result of quasi-rape could occur when the general public considered the circumstances perceived at the time of the act, the crime of quasi-rape is impossible.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Do16002 Decided March 28, 2019). In light of the legal provisions, the structure of the provisions, and the dynamic nature of the act’s pattern, the foregoing legal doctrine is quasi-rape or sexual crime instituted in this case.