The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case and the part of the case for attachment order shall be reversed.

Defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 13 years.

1. The court below, within the scope of the judgment of this court, declared a conviction against the accused and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”), and ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years as to the case claiming the attachment order, but dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the case claiming the attachment order, and only the Defendant appealed against this.

Therefore, despite Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part of the request for probation order, the scope of this court’s judgment is limited to the part of the case of the defendant and the part of the request for attachment order.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of “Article 2. A(a)” as indicated in the judgment of the court below, such as misconception of facts, the Defendant did not have any intention or intention to rape the above E, the victim of the crime at issue, with respect to the crime of “Article 2.1(a)” (hereinafter “instant crime”).

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the charge of the crime at issue based on the above E’s statement, etc. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception of facts.

B. The Defendant, at the time of each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below, has committed each of the above crimes under the state of mental and physical disability, as he administered 0.28g phiphonephones, and the decision-making ability has been significantly deteriorated.

C. The lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and unreasonable.

It is unfair that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years, although there is no risk of sexual assault and recidivism.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In the trial, the prosecutor facts the facts charged of this case in the judgment of the court below.