The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years of imprisonment.

personal information against the defendant.

A. Part 1 of the case of the defendant is erroneous and misunderstanding legal principles and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant")

(2) The lower court did not recognize that the Defendant was unable to resist or resist due to mental disability, and did not intend to use the said victim’s status, and only attempted to engage in sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the instant charges. (2) The sentence (one-year imprisonment, etc.) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment by asserting the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this case. Examining the lower court’s aforementioned judgment compared with the records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion on the allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit. 2) The Defendant’s attempt to have sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s difficulty in resisting the victim due to his mental disability, and the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime while having been under suspension of execution, and that the Defendant denied the Defendant’s crime until now is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant.