The judgment below

Part of the application for compensation order shall be reversed.

An application for remedy by an applicant for remedy shall be dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the Defendant’s application for a compensation order, and the request for an attachment order, as the Defendant appealed only, there is no benefit in filing an appeal regarding the attachment order case.

Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, a legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 2011; 201Do201, Aug. 25, 201). Therefore, the part of the Defendant’s request for attachment order against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of the trial at the court below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim D’s statement, the only direct evidence to acknowledge the guilty of sexual intercourse with the instant crime by force of the instant assertion of mistake of facts, is not consistent, and the victim D’s statement is difficult to believe in light of the circumstances before and after the said crime. Therefore, the court below which found the guilty of this part of the crime is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. In light of the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Examining the Defendant’s grounds for appeal [the part concerning the Defendant’s appeal] (1) of the mistake of facts, there are some differences in the victim D’s statements in detail regarding the background leading up to the sexual intercourse by the instant force. However, the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, in particular, that not only ① the victim D, who is a high school student with male-level, is about 13 years old but also about 13 years old, but also the sexual intercourse without a distance within the motor vehicle parked on the Defendant and the road that he first known and known, are inconsistent with the common sense of the general public, ② the victim D was hospitalized in the hospital after the instant case, received treatment of mental health department, etc., and appeal for mental suffering at present.