The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Therefore, the part of the judgment dismissed by the lower court is separated and finalized as it is, and there is no interest in appeal concerning 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 dismissed part and the attachment order case are excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The court below held that the defendant committed the crimes of fraud of this case against many victims within a short period of time under similar veterinary methods despite the past records of being punished due to the crimes of fraud and the violation of the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, etc. Act (sexual traffic). The defendant committed the crimes of fraud of this case, attempted fraud and the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (sexual traffic) against the victims of sexual traffic by deception. The defendant committed the crimes against the victims of sexual traffic of this case again against the victims of sexual traffic, which are very poor in the nature of the crime, and did not properly compensate the victims for damages, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant's misunderstanding of his/her mistake, and shows the attitude of reflecting it.