The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s claim regarding the part on which the request for attachment order was filed while it rendered a judgment of conviction on the part on the case of the defendant, and the only defendant appealed on this issue, thus there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part on which the request for

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Electronic Device Attachment Act, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant among the judgment below, and the part of the case of the application for attachment order is excluded.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower court is too inappropriate.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to order the disclosure and notification of the Defendant’s information to the public for a period of five years, even though there are special circumstances for not notifying the disclosure of the Defendant’s personal information.

3. Determination

A. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case as to the crime of this case, the defendant repents and reflects his mistake, and the crime of this case is recognized as having a relation of concurrent crimes with the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof, etc. (Rape, etc.) which became final and conclusive on June 20, 208, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, with regard to the concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act,

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant by infringing on the residence of the victim, rapeing the victim, carrying dangerous objects, and committing rape, and the nature of the crime is considerably not good. The victim appears to have suffered a huge mental impulse and pain due to the crime of this case, the defendant did not receive a letter or reach an agreement from the victim up to the trial, the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he was under the period of suspended sentence of imprisonment due to quasi-Robbery, and the sentencing of the court below is within the reasonable scope of discretion.