1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;

3. Sexual assault against the defendant for 200 hours.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case against which the defendant was found guilty and the part of the case for which the request for attachment order was filed, and as such, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part for which the request for attachment order was filed

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and thus, it is limited to the part of the judgment below of this court

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the attempted murder) did not have any intent or motive to kill the victim, since the Defendant, who wishes to return the victim’s mind to return it to the ordinary couple, did not have any intention or motive to kill the victim.

The Defendant, while searching for the word, “homicide,” etc. on the Internet by the victim leaving his/her subordinate part, did not actually attempt or plan to kill the victim. Preparation for ropes and Cheong tape is aimed at preventing the victim from escaping, and the victim’s booms “to die.”

“The phrase “,” etc., but it is merely an indication of pino.

The Defendant was able to dump the victim because he was forced to do so because he was forced to do so, and he did not remain in the part of the victim, so there was no possibility of the victim's death.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of attempted murder is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Even if all of the charges of sentencing are found guilty, the sentence of the lower court (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.

A. On September 25, 2015, the Defendant is the victim at the H cafeteria located in Daegu-gu G around 20:00.