The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. With respect to the part of the case of the Defendant, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case for which the request for the attachment order and the protective observation was rendered, and as such, only the Defendant appealed therefrom, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part for which the request for the attachment order and

Therefore, notwithstanding Articles 9(8) and 21-8 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the application for attachment order and protection observation among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of this court's trial. Thus, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the part of the case of the defendant among the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete the course, and 3 years of order to disclose or notify) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of mental and physical weakness on the grounds that the Defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment, and on the grounds that detailed circumstances exist between the two and three pages of the judgment, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion.

Examining the circumstances set forth by the court below in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The instant crime of determining the illegality of sentencing was also the case where the Defendant opened a multi-household house with a knife and attempted to rape the victim, and the crime was inferior to the nature of the crime, and the risk of the act was also emphasized.

In addition, one defendant has been sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (indecent act such as deceptive scheme).

In light of this point, the defendant.