Judgment

The circumstances are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant had no previous conviction due to the age of 76 years, the fact that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner under the influence of alcohol, and that the defendant has been recognized to commit the crime of this case late later, and that he reflects it.

On the other hand, in light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, who is divorced from her husband and living alone, was raped twice, was committed by a police officer who tried to rape once, and was committed with considerable violence to the victim during the course of rape, etc., the crime of this case is very heavy, and the victim appears to have received considerable sexual humiliation and mental shock together with the victim's considerable sexual humiliation, and the defendant did not receive a written indictment from the victim, etc., which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, the following circumstances and the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the range of punishment for each of the recommended sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court (at least three years of imprisonment) (the scope of recommended punishment) pursuant to the general criteria for rape (at least 13 years of age) and the basic area (at least 2 years of age and 5 years of age) of the first category (at least 2 years of age and 5 years of general rape) (the person subject to special sentencing): The final range of punishment due to multiple increased crimes, for which no sentencing guidelines are applicable: The attempts to rape, to which the sentencing guidelines are applicable, and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes. Thus, the lower limit of the above final sentence should only comply with the minimum limit of punishment, but the above lower limit is lower than the statutory minimum limit of punishment.

In full view of the above, it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant-appellant.