The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The first instance court rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the defendant's case and dismissal of the prosecutor's request on the part of the attachment order case. Since only the defendant appealed, the part of the attachment order case does not have any interest in appeal, and therefore, this part is excluded from the scope of this court's trial notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.

2. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court to the summary of the grounds for appeal (seven years of imprisonment, etc.) shall be too unreasonable; and

3. The judgment of the defendant shows an attitude against his own will to recognize the crime of this case. The crime of this case appears to have committed an act of drinking alcohol and contingently, the crime of this case is not subject to a heavier punishment than the suspension of execution, and there is no record of committing a sexual crime, and there is more intellectual disability like the mother who is employed as his family with the victim.

However, the Defendant, due to intellectual disability, has been rapeed to inflict bodily harm by committing a crime, and the nature of the crime is very poor, and the Act on the Acceptance of Crimes is spathic, and the Defendant appears to not well look at the victims and children with intellectual disability while drinking almost every day in normal, and the victim was suffering from a big mental shock and pain due to the instant crime, and the Defendant has not yet been able to find any disadvantageous sentencing factors, such as the Defendant’s failure to take care of the victim.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and various circumstances revealed in pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed appropriate, and it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, it is true.