The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc., the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case of the Defendant and the part of the case of the attachment order, on which only the Defendant appealed, and as such, the part of the case of the attachment order did not have any interest in appeal, the lower court excluded this part from the scope of this court’s judgment.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. It is desirable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment and the first instance judgment.

Considering unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment for sexual crimes, that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, or that the crime of this case is committed by force by the defendant, or that the defendant has sexual intercourse or has sexual intercourse with the victim who is his age, and that it is highly likely that the crime is bad and highly likely to be criticized, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced the lower limit of the applicable sentences (five to forty-five years) under the law is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.