The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the above punishment for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the attachment order when it rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the case of the defendant, and the defendant appealed only to this, and thus there is no benefit of appeal as to the part of the attachment order.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the attachment order case shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

3. The instant crime is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendant, where the Defendant had sexual intercourse on two occasions with a victim of intellectual disability by force, and the nature of the crime was inferior in light of the background of the crime, the form of the crime, etc., and the victim appears to have suffered considerable sexual humiliation and mental suffering, etc.

However, the Defendant recognized all of the crimes in this court, and divided his mistake in depth, and the Defendant was the first offender who had no record of criminal punishment before criminal punishment, and in particular, the Defendant and his family members agreed to the victim with the court first time by committing the crime of a serious death in the victim, and agreed to the recovery of damage, such as paying the victim an agreed amount of KRW 80,000,000,000 to the court, and the victim expressed his/her intent that he/she would not want to be punished more than the Defendant to the court. In addition, considering all of the factors of various sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, sex, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below seems to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable and therefore, pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.