Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, a legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 201; 201Do201, Aug. 25, 201). Thus, the Defendant’s claim for attachment order against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, and the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the Defendant’s case which was pronounced guilty in the lower court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a two-year imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake; (b) the attempted rape crime was committed; and (c) the Defendant had no record of being punished for a sex offense before the instant crime was committed.

However, the crime of this case is highly likely to be criticized as having been committed by the defendant, who is a person with a mental disability of the first degree, by force, to have sexual intercourse with the victim who is a person with a mental disability of the second degree, and the victim also seems to have suffered a considerable

In addition, considering the defendant's age, health status, criminal records, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background leading to the crime of this case, the means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime of this case, the court below's punishment can be recognized as belonging to the range of appropriate punishment according to its responsibility, so it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.