2. A favorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor is acknowledged, such as the Defendant’s previous conviction and suspended sentence, and the Defendant’s previous conviction and suspended sentence are not determined to the extent of mental disorder (the Defendant’s assertion to the purport of mental disorder is not acceptable) but appears to have reached an contingent and shocking crime while drunk. The rape crime of this case is about attempted, and the degree of injury inflicted on the victim is not very serious.

However, the crime of this case is also recognized as a disadvantageous sentencing factor, such as: (a) the Defendant’s knife knife and attempted to rape, which is a dangerous thing for the victim, while taking advantage of the victim’s knife in the knife of the knife in the body of the victim; (b) the victim’s age, tools used for the crime; and (c) the circumstances at the time of the crime; and (d) the victim who suffered deep mental suffering from the instant case strongly wanting to punish the Defendant.

Although the above sentencing factors and the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, criminal records, health conditions, motive and background leading to the crime of this case, the means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the defendant's and his family members are more mitigated than the court below's punishment in the trial based on the above favorable sentencing factors, the crime of this case is punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment of not less than 10 years, and there is no reason for repeated mitigation such as mitigation of the defendant's self-denunciation, in this case, where the court below sentenced the lowest sentence through discretionary mitigation as stated in its reasoning, considering the sentencing factors of the defendant's assertion, and thus, it is legally impossible to sentence a lower sentence.