In addition, all appeals filed by the requester for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances against the defendant and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”).

B. In light of the circumstances against the prosecutor’s defendant, the sentence imposed by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Although the defendant in the defendant's case had the record of being sentenced to suspended sentence due to sexual crimes, he committed the crime of this case at another time. The crime of this case is committed by force by the defendant who has intellectual disorder, and the nature of the crime is not good as a case of attempted sexual intercourse, and the victim seems to have received a large mental impulse due to the crime of this case, the defendant seems to have received a large amount of mental impulse due to the crime of this case, the defendant's confession of all the crime of this case and reflects the defendant's age, character, character, environment, family relationship, motive of the crime, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., including the defendant's age, character, environment, family relation, motive of the crime of this case, the means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the recommended sentencing guidelines under the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court, it cannot be deemed that the court below's punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant and prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. As long as the Defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the prosecuted case, it is deemed that they filed an appeal against the attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. However, the Defendant and the prosecutor did not submit any grounds for appeal regarding the attachment order case, and even after examining the lower judgment, the part of the attachment order case is ex officio.