Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (the number of years of imprisonment with prison labor, 300 hours of sexual assault treatment programs) against the accused case is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s decision that sentenced the Defendant to an attachment order is unreasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the Defendant”) limited the victim who is a pro-friendly parent to commit the crime.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant committed each of the instant offenses against the Defendant, in light of the fact that each of the instant offenses committed again during the period of repeated crime, and the victim seems to have suffered mental damage not to be completely cured due to each of the instant offenses, etc., the Defendant’s family members, including the victim, were raped on eight occasions by preventing him/her from drinking alcohol, and taken the body parts of the Defendant, such as the victim’s sexual intercourse with his/her cell phone, the victim’s sexual intercourse, and the chest, etc., and the nature of the offense was extremely poor. The Defendant was sentenced to six years from January 2, 201 to January 2, 2005, and was released from the court below, by committing indecent act by force or rape against the victim, who was an elementary school student at the time of the instant offense, again committed each of the instant offenses during the period of repeated crime. Considering that the Defendant’s family members, such as the victim, wanted the Defendant’s wife, and the Defendant complained of his/her wrong judgment, the sentencing of the Defendant is unreasonable.

The grounds for appeal are without merit.

B. In light of the Defendant’s power, the method and frequency of each of the instant crimes, the relationship with the victim, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, distorted perception and attitude about sex, and the Defendant’s legal attitude in regard to the request for an attachment order, the lower court’s measure that cited the Defendant’s request for an attachment order to the same purport is justifiable.

This part of the appeal is justified.