The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the charges of the case, and rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's request with respect to the case of the request for attachment order, and only the defendant appealed against this, the part of the request for attachment order does not have a benefit of appeal.

Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do7079, Aug. 19, 2010; 2010Do41, Aug. 19, 2010). As such, the part of the claim for attachment order against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor (10 years for imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the circumstances such as the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the crime, such as where the defendant et al. took care of the victim who is a minor as his father and wife, and took care of the victim's sex excessively for a long time, and by compulsion of rape, etc., the victim suffered from an irrecoverable mental harm, the victim's confession and reflects all his crime from the early stage of the investigation, and the victim would not have access to the victim again. If the defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act in 197, there is no record of criminal punishment; the victim and his legal representative want to take care of the victim's wife; the victim's social relation is obvious; the degree of the type used by the defendant in the crime of this case is relatively insignificant; and other favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is unfair.

The defendant's appeal is justified.