Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the defendant case constitutes the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The reason for considering the Defendant’s case as favorable to the Defendant is that the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, and that there was no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime.

On the other hand, as decided by the court below, the defendant threatened the victim at the rare underground parking lot where his human being is low, threatened the victim with knife his resistance, and forced him to kill his body, and forced him to leave his body, and forced him to leave his body, and thereby he forced him to withdraw his property, and caused the bodily injury in the process, even if he raped his woman and detained him for about 11 hours and 40 minutes, and there is a high possibility of criticism due to the lack of the law of the crime.

Accordingly, the victims suffered from post-treatment such as rejection of any contact for agreement with the defendant, etc. so that they suffered from severe mental shock and pain.

In addition, if the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had a record of committing an attempted rape on June 29, 1993 by intrusion upon another's office and attempted rape, he committed the crime of this case again, the risk of recidivism is also high.

The defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, and the above sentencing grounds.