Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. There are special circumstances to exempt the accused from disclosure or notification orders.

(c)

There is a risk that the criminal defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as " criminal defendant") who committed the crime would recommit a sexual crime.

Therefore, the attachment order is unfair.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects on the wrongful argument of sentencing.

However, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same sexual crime, and in particular, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. and committed the instant crime only two months after the execution of the sentence was terminated. The victim was aware that he/she would assist the Defendant in an economic situation as his/her wife. At that place, the Defendant attempted to rape the victim within his/her arms and used several violences against the resisting victim, and the victim was injured by using several violences. The accompanying person who was born the victim at the time was living together with the victim at the seat of the victim, might have been able to have the victim suffered much injury if he/she did not ask the victim for more sexual humiliation and mental shock due to the instant crime, and it appears that the victim was under considerable sexual humiliation and mental shock due to the instant crime, and that the victim was under considerable influence of the victim's economic difficulty, the circumstances leading up to the Defendant's attempted rape, the circumstances surrounding the crime and the circumstances leading up to the Defendant's attempted rape, the circumstances of the lower court's punishment were not recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.