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

A. The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and they were in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. In light of the motive and background of the instant crime, the process of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior immediately after the instant crime, which is acknowledged by the record as to the claim of mental retardation, it does not seem that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

The defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, there are circumstances that may be considered, such as that the Defendant did not have been sentenced to the previous punishment and imprisonment, support the wife and her children, recognition of the crime, and repent of mistake. 2) Meanwhile, the instant crime requires a strict punishment for the Defendant due to the serious nature of the crime because the Defendant raped 13 years of age. Considering the Defendant’s family relation, character and conduct, the background and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is not unfair because it is appropriate and unreasonable.

3. Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. The judgment on the part of the attachment order case is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders when the defendant filed an appeal regarding the prosecuted case. However, there is no reason to reverse this part ex officio without stating the grounds for appeal or the petition of appeal filed by the defendant.

4. Conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, Article 35 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, and the Criminal Procedure Act.