The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Seized smartphones (G2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is too unreasonable. It is unfair that the punishment imposed by the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case on the ground that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair. 2) The lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for attachment

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case on the part of the defendant's case is extremely poor because the defendant's right to use the psychotropic drug ingredients prepared in advance for the victim, who is a caregiver to provide domestic nursing services, to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim who has lost his mind and taken the body of the victim in a camera.

The Defendant committed the instant crime on a planned basis, and sent the photograph of the victim to the victim.

As a result, the victim was suffering from extreme sexual humiliation and mental impulse.

However, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and is in profoundly against the Defendant.

The defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim.

Defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than that sentenced four times until 200, and there is no record of punishment for sexual crimes.

In addition, in full view of the age, character and conduct, environment, and all other sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is somewhat inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is reasonable, and the prosecutor's argument on this part is without merit.

B. The lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for the instant attachment order on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had a risk of repeating a sexual crime in the future, in light of the circumstances indicated in

by record.