Defendant

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

With respect to the part of the defendant's case, the court below rendered a judgment of conviction and the part of the case for which the request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device is filed (hereinafter "request for attachment order") to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years, and dismissed the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the request for probation order.

On the other hand, only the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") filed an appeal.

Therefore, the above part is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, since there is no benefit in appeal to the part of the request for probation order.

On the other hand, as long as the defendant filed an appeal against the accused case among the judgment below, it is deemed that the defendant filed an appeal against the request for attachment order pursuant to Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the defendant's case and attachment order claim.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the part of the Defendant case, the crime of rape in the instant case was committed during the attempted rape.

50,000 won was paid for the recovery of damage in relation to the crime of injury.

The defendant is a person with disabilities who has grow up in a poor environment, has low education level and has cut off the right hand hand of the defendant due to industrial accidents.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

The Defendant did not commit the instant crime even though he/she was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to the attempted rape and was released from prison, and did not commit the instant crime.

The crime of rape in the instant case was committed by the Defendant, after removing the window booming network of the victim’s residence, attempted rape.