The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

40 hours per the defendant.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of

The summary of the grounds for appeal in light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment imposed by the court below (including imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six years, forty hours, completion of sexual assault treatment programs, personal telephone, etc.) is too unreasonable and unfair (the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim on August 7, 2016, and sexual intercourse with the victim on the grounds of appeal). The defendant was sexual intercourse with the victim on August 7, 2016, and there was no sexual intercourse on two occasions a day due to the limitation of the defendant's physical strength with regard to the point between the special lectures on the same day, and thus there was no act of special rape in itself. However, the argument that there was no act of rape in this case was withdrawn from the above argument to the effect that there was a dispute about mistake of facts at the first trial date in the trial of the court of the first instance, and there was no legitimate ground for appeal, and even after examining ex officio the above facts, there was

In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the instant crime was committed in the course of a dispute between the victim and the victim, who continued to keep his/her body pictures, etc. as they were kept in his/her own cell phone, by means of violence, such as spreading the victim’s body pictures, etc., and threatening him/her.