Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was withdrawn by the Defendant on the third trial date of the trial.

The sentencing of the lower court on the Defendant and the person subject to the request for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. The attachment order of an electronic tracking device issued by the court below which was unfair to attach an electronic device is inappropriate.

2. Determination

A. It is favorable for the Defendant to recognize and reflect the error of the Defendant on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the crime of rape against the victim is an attempted crime, and the agreement with the mother of the victim is reached.

However, in light of the fact that the victim trusted in the defendant's trust in the defendant's "Jari village" was committed to rape or engage in similarity with the victim by using intellectual disability, and the physical and mental impulses suffered by the victim due to the crime of this case, the responsibility for the crime is very heavy; considering the fact that the defendant has been punished by imprisonment twice for the same crime; and other factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the court below's punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. As to the allegation that the attachment order was unfair, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant committed a sexual crime on two occasions against the victim with a mental disability, etc.