The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding a prosecuted case’s request for conviction and attachment order, and only the Defendant appealed against the prosecuted case.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Electronic Device Attachment Act, there is no benefit to the defendant in filing an appeal, so this case is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, and only the defendant case is included in the scope of the trial.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The lower court’s imprisonment (eight years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment below held that each of the crimes of this case appears to have been committed unilaterally by the defendant, that it does not seem that the victim had used force, such as violence, etc. during the course of the crime, and that during the period entrusted rearing for more than five years, the period during which the crime was committed is about several months, and that it appears that the defendant was no longer punished after the victim's locking device was harmed upon the victim's request, and that the defendant has long been punished for a minor traffic crime, and that there was no record of punishment for a sex crime, and that there was no record of punishment for a sex crime in favor of the defendant. In light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, the defendant has committed a sex crime repeatedly by taking advantage of the fact that it is difficult for the defendant to clearly reveal the damage that the victim was committed as a de facto parent entrusted with the custody of the victim, and thus, the defendant has committed a similar act with the victim over several occasions during several months, and sexual intercourse has been committed again, and it does not have a high possibility of social criticism or mental suffering.