In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

Defendant

In addition, the person subject to the request for attachment order filed a written notification of the receipt of trial records on March 17, 2015, and filed a written application for mental appraisal with the court on May 11, 2015, which was submitted to the court on May 11, 2015, stating that “the person was in a state with weak capacity to determine the intention as uneas

However, the above assertion of mental disorder is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it does not seem that the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order did not lack the ability to determine the intention as an uneasiness at the time of the crime of this case.

Although the defendant and the person subject to an application for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") are plicking or plucking up the victim's neck, they did not look at the victim's face, etc.

In addition, the defendant argued about the place of sexual intercourse with the victim, and the sexual intercourse itself was conducted by sexual traffic agreements with the victim, so the above assault cannot be deemed as a means of rape.

The defendant in confinement part did not leave the victim's hand with the defendant's Titts, and did not get off his clothes, boom his hand, or combine the victim's hand by strawing.

According to the records, on March 27, 2015, the defendant submitted to this court on March 27, 2015, a legitimate period for submitting a statement of grounds of appeal, the defendant alleged that "the defendant only said that "the defendant would be forced to place the victim's hand-on, and there is no fact that the defendant exceeded the victim's clothes or gets off the victim's body." The defendant's defense counsel denies the defendant about the crime of rape on April 28, 2015, but with respect to the crime of confinement, the defendant's defense counsel denied the defendant as to the crime of rape.