The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant’s case regarding which the request for attachment order was sought, and the only Defendant appealed therefrom. As such, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part regarding which the request for attachment order was filed.

Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, a legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982). Therefore, the claim for attachment order against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, and as a result, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the defendant's case which was pronounced guilty in the

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The Defendant, as a person with a mental disorder of Grade II, lacks the ability to recognize himself/herself as a person with mental disability to the extent that he/she is unable to use his/her Korean language. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability as a person with mental disability, since he/she did not drink and drink the surgery at the time

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to four years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completing a sexual assault treatment program, 5 years of disclosure and notification order) is too unreasonable.

3. According to the record on the claim of mental disability, the defendant was judged to fall under I Q 42 (age 5 and 10 months), and social index 43 in the inspection of social well-being in the process of the integrated examination of visual-sports development conducted on February 22, 2012 at La hospital. The defendant was treated as a outpatient due to serious behavioral disorder in the La hospital from September 13, 2010 to May 29, 2013 in the process of the examination of social well-being, such as impulse, damage to judgment power, and uneasiness, while he was in need of constant treatment for six months or more. According to the claim investigation report, the defendant was registered as a person with intellectual disability with a disability of Grade 2, and is engaged in daily work, and he is recognized as having most of his ability to determine the ability to use words, etc.