The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part of the defendant's case (a two sides, an unreasonable sentencing: the defendant asserted the "mental disorder" in the statement of grounds of appeal, but the defendant and his defense counsel withdrawn the above argument on the date of the first instance trial of the party instance), the defendant and the person subject to the request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") asserts that the defendant's imprisonment and the person subject to the request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are too unreasonable and unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The judgment of the court below that dismissed the Defendant’s request for attachment order since the Defendant’s request for attachment order is recognized to pose a risk of repeating the crime.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case in the part of the defendant's case (as to the two parties' assertions that the defendant had sexual intercourse by force despite the victim's explicit refusal intention at the victim's home at the age of 14 years, which is later female-friendly job offers. Furthermore, the defendant sent the victim's chests, negative photographs, and video image to a third party using a mobile phone, and the crime of this case is not less complicated, and the defendant and his parents suffered considerable mental and physical shocks due to the occurrence of this case, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, however, the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided and contradictory to the defendant's petition, the victim's side and the defendant's family members reached the trial, and they received the letter from the victim's side, and the degree of power to commit the sexual intercourse of this case does not seem to have been serious. Since traffic accident in 2011, the defendant suffered a qualitative mental disorder due to the injury to the sexual intercourse, and the defendant seems to have experienced difficulties in the appraisal adjustment due to such medical history, and the defendant is likely to be improved as a university student of 21 years old who has no criminal history, and his family members are able to protect and guide the defendant.