The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant’s case and the part regarding the claim for attachment order against the Defendant.

Notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no benefit in appeal with respect to the part of the claim for attachment order filed only by the defendant, this part shall be excluded from the scope of the trial of the court.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case before he turns 19 years of age and is still 19 years of age, the first offender, the recognition of each of the crimes of this case, and his mistake is divided in depth, and one of three victims and the point agreed by the court below is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime against the aged victims by rape or by force. However, one of the victims was pregnant due to the Defendant’s criminal act, and the physical and mental suffering suffered by the victims is very serious that the Defendant’s responsibility for the instant crime is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

The lower court determined that the sentence was determined by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned circumstances and other various conditions that may serve as conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, background, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (two years of imprisonment). It is not determined that the lower court’s sentence that exceeds the lower limit of the above recommended sentence is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Thus, the defendant's appeal of this case is correct.