Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the defendant's case.

2. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of six years and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant committed the instant crime at the latest after the lapse of the time in this court, thereby going against the mistake.

There is no history of criminal punishment heavier than a fine.

The defendant should support open aging.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant has sexual intercourse with a person who is a father of a person living in a de facto marital relationship by force and committed similar rape.

In light of the fact that the defendant is the object of solving the sexual desire of the victim who is a family member, the age of the victim, and repeated sexual intercourse by force.

It is clear that victims suffered huge physical or mental impulse and pain, and it seems difficult to form sound sexual values in the future.

The defendant has not received or agreed a letter from the injured person until now.

The Defendant is highly likely to be subject to criticism, such as denying sexual intercourse with the investigative agency and the lower court’s court’s judgment by force until the mother of the victim to reverse the statement of the fact of damage and to force the victim to cancel the complaint and indicate his intention of not to impose punishment.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too excessive.