The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant’s case and the part of the attachment order case, and only the Defendant appealed on the part of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant’s case.

Therefore, there is no benefit in appeal regarding the part of the attachment order case against the defendant.

As such, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, a legal fiction of appeal, shall not apply (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Do6705, 201Do20, Aug. 25, 201); and the part of the attachment order case shall not be subject to second trial.

Ultimately, the part of the attachment order case is excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment is that the defendant is the primary offender, the defendant is able to repent and reflect while making a confession of all his criminal acts, the mother of the victim is the her wife against the defendant, and the defendant's crime of this case is committed in relation to the attempted crime, and there are favorable circumstances for the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the Defendant, who is only eight years of age and only eight years of age, and the birth of a female and the victim is confirmed, and the crime of this case is committed by attempted rape, and the nature of the crime is very poor, considering the above favorable circumstances, it is inevitable to sentence sentence even in consideration of the above favorable circumstances.

Therefore, in full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the argument of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced two and a half years and six months imprisonment with prison labor, which was the lowest sentence after attempted mitigation and discretionary mitigation, cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

4. Therefore, the conclusion is reasonable.