The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case for which a request for attachment order was filed while rendering a judgment of conviction on the part of the Defendant case, and appealed only to the Defendant.

Therefore, the part of the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no benefit of appeal.

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

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

We examine whether the sentence of the lower judgment, which returned to the instant case, is too unreasonable in light of the substance of the specific case.

1. (1) The lower court: (a) the Defendant lost or weak the victim’s awareness and control ability by the method of drinking alcohol to the victim; and (b) the method of the instant crime appears to have been planned in advance; and (c) the responsibility for the relevant crime is very heavy.