I would like to say.

Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 2011; 201Do200, Aug. 25, 201); therefore, the part regarding the attachment order case against the Defendant is not subject to second trial. Accordingly, the part regarding the attachment order case against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment of the defendant has become a favorable condition to the defendant, such as the fact that all of the crimes of this case are recognized and reflected in the judgment, and the victims have not been punished by the defendant under an agreement with the victims.

However, the crime of this case is a case where the defendant rapes the victims and breathed the victims, and the defendant was prosecuted for sexual assault (criminal facts of Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court below) against singing machines, but the defendant exercised the ability to complete the work of the customer's staff who performed drinking together without being involved, and repeatedly committed similar crimes such as committing sexual assault (criminal facts of Paragraph 3 of the judgment of the court below). The defendant seems to have received considerable mental impulse at the time of the occurrence of the victims, and submitted a re-agreement by paying the agreed amount at the trial for the victims related to the criminal facts of Paragraph 3 of the judgment of the court below, but the above victims already submitted a written agreement at the investigative agency.