The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court below rendered a judgment to dismiss the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the case of the defendant and the part of the case of the case of the attachment order, and the only defendant appealed. Thus, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the case of the attachment order claim.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of

misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the defendant merely committed a sexual intercourse by agreement with the victim and did not commit rape by assault or intimidation. At the time of sexual intercourse, the victim was not aware that he/she was a disabled person.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of rape of the disabled person of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the punishment imposed by the court below (the imprisonment of five years, the completion of sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours, and the disclosure and notification of personal information for five years) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also argued to the same effect as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the victim’s statement on the facts charged of this case has credibility, and that the Defendant’s rape can be fully recognized.

A statement made on July 3, 2016 by the victim in the police investigation (hereinafter referred to as "the statement").