Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the application 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

2. The summary of the reasons for appeal (six years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, a female juvenile at 16 years of age, leaving the shelter and leaving the victim to the youth. The Defendant detained the victim who was dissatisfied with one another, and the victim was raped and was inflicted on the victim during confinement, and the crime was very heavy.

The victim suffered a big physical or mental damage.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, and did not take any measures to recover from damage.

Even in light of the fact that the Defendant was committed in the course of and against the mistake of the Defendant, and that there was no criminal conviction exceeding the same kind of punishment or fine, the lower court’s punishment is determined to be within the appropriate range of sentence corresponding to its liability, in full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime; and (b) the circumstances after the commission of the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

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