The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

80 hours per the defendant.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the Defendant’s case and the case regarding the request for attachment order.

With respect to this, only the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") filed an appeal, since there is no benefit in the appeal with respect to the case of the request for attachment order, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the defendant case falls under the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment of six years, the order to complete the course 80 hours, and the order to notify the disclosure) is too unreasonable.

3. The crime of this case, which is a female juvenile who is not satisfe at the time when the defendant was taken over, is a target for raising his sexual desire, and is raped by over the face of the tent prepared in advance, covering it into the surrounding dry field, leading the victim into a dry field, leading the victim to drinking, etc., and resulting in the victim's bodily injury, which is very poor in the nature of the crime and the method of committing the crime. The victim, who is obliged to form a favorable and correct sexual values, caused a severe mental suffering and a sense of sexual humiliation due to the crime of this case, and the victim was unable to agree with the victim, and the victim was satisfeing his severe punishment against the defendant, etc., which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against his mistake, that the defendant deposited KRW 5 million for the victim when the defendant was in the first instance, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than a fine sentenced twice due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act prior to the old time.