The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the part of the Defendant case, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part on which the request for attachment order was filed, and as such, the part on which the request for attachment order was filed does not have any interest in appeal.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (12 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The following facts are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized that all of the crimes were committed, and there is no record of criminal punishment except for those punished twice for other types of crimes; and (b) the Defendant reported marriage and actually supported his/her father and mother for a long time while maintaining a de facto marital relationship with the victim of intellectual disability 2 from 2009.

However, the crime of this case is very bad in light of the content of the crime, the age of the victim, and the relationship between the defendant and the victim, etc., when the defendant, a father of the victim, committed sexual abuse against the victim, who is a child or juvenile living in his/her place of residence under his/her protection and custody, and committed sexual assault by force, such as sexual intercourse, similarity, and indecent act.

The Defendant committed the instant crime by taking advantage of the emotional and economic situation in which the victim of one’s age was sexually and economically expressed with the disabled, and the victim was placed in a position where the Defendant had to depend on the Defendant, who is the only protection and custody, while being continuously subject to sexual assault and abuse from the Defendant. Therefore, there is a high possibility of criticism on the Defendant’s crime.