A. The Defendant case and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) attempted to have sexual intercourse once by force against the victim and attempted to have sexual intercourse, and furthermore, even if they had sexual intercourse once, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and acquitted the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case is unlawful even if it is recognized that the Defendant in the attachment order case had the risk of sexual crime and recidivism.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the fact that the victim was accommodated in the telecom with the Defendant in a situation where the victim cannot return to the home and house, when the Defendant attempted to engage in the first sexual intercourse, the victim expressed his intention of refusal by taking the Defendant’s hand away from the Defendant’s hand, refused to engage in sexual intercourse with the Defendant’s refusal, the victim stated the fact that he was sexual intercourse with the Defendant by going through the Defendant’s home, and asked the Defendant to reverse the statement by having the victim’s sexual intercourse with the fact that he had no sexual relationship with the Defendant. In so doing, there is a strong doubt that the Defendant was sexual intercourse with or having sexual intercourse with the victim by force, which is not an attempted sexual intercourse with the victim.

However, the circumstances cited by the court below, particularly upon the victim's request, the defendant was able to take care of the cartel, and the defendant was able to take care of him from the floor to the victim at first time, and was able to do so with the victim at the victim's request, and the victim expressed somewhat little intention of refusal at first during the first sexual intercourse attempt, but he was off his clothes, and the victim did not express any objection against the defendant's second sexual intercourse City/Do at the court of the court below.