Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the attachment order is excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant.

2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (such as imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months) is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant, who made a judgment, led to confession and reflect on the instant crime.

The defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case in contingency under the influence of alcohol, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant in consultation with the victim.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

However, since this court did not submit new sentencing data, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment.

The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant first committed an indecent act by her her butt, and the victim seems to have slicked a considerable sense of sexual humiliation and fear.

In addition, on September 30, 2016, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution by the Ulsan District Court on the grounds of forced indecent act.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and method of committing a crime, and the circumstances after committing a crime, which are unfavorable to the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be excessive and beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion that the sentencing of the court below is unreasonable is accepted.