Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by a person subject to attachment order and a person subject to medical treatment and custody are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that recognized the intention of rape, even though the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order and the person subject to medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") have only committed an indecent act against the victims of sexual assault, but did not have any intent to commit rape, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In light of the legal principles, the lower court did not take into account the fact that the Defendant recognized the state of mental and physical disability and determined the actual sentence despite statutory mitigation.

(2) As a result of a mental appraisal, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s mental suffering from mental illness and imposed both punishment of 10 years of imprisonment and/or 10 years of imprisonment, which led to more severe result in the Defendant’s judgment and disposition, and thus, there was an error of misapprehending the legal doctrine of mental suffering from mental disorder in

C. The Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the abuse of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

The sentencing of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (10 years of imprisonment, medical treatment and custody, and 12 years of order to attach an electronic tracking device) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court rejected this part of the allegation in detail, with a detailed statement on the judgment under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no illegality of misconception of facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court did not err in the process of statutory mitigation of mental and physical disability and of deriving from the applicable sentences and sentence.

In the end, this part.