The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request for probation order regarding a prosecuted case, a judgment ordering the attachment, etc. of an electronic tracking device for ten years as to a request for attachment order, and a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request for probation order.

On the other hand, only the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") appealed against the judgment below.

Notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”), the probation order claim is excluded from the scope of the trial of the original instance court as there is no interest in appeal to the defendant, and is included only in the case of the defendant and the case of the request for attachment order.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as follows.

(1) In the case of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Rape) (Article 1(b) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the Defendant did not possess a knife knife at the time. The Defendant was only sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim and did not rape the victim. (2) In the case of similar rape (Article 3(a) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes) (Article 3(a) of the Act on Special Cases Concern

B. It is also unreasonable that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable and unfair (two years of imprisonment), and that the lower court ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device.

(Unlawful Claim for Attachment Order) 3. Judgment

A. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit as follows.

1. The Defendant recognized all of the facts charged in the original judgment.

There is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant’s confession statement made in the original court was made against the truth or against the Defendant’s will.

The reinforcement evidence on this is also ...