The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case against which the defendant was found guilty and the part of the case for which the request for attachment order was filed, and there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part for which the request for attachment order was filed.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not force the victim to commit an indecent act or rape as stated in the facts constituting the lower judgment.

Even so, the court below found the victim's statement in the court below's trial consistent with the defendant's defense to be guilty on the ground that the victim's statement in the court below's trial for the defendant's defense was not trusted, and only the victim's statement without credibility made in the investigative agency. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of

B. Even if all of the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant did not force the victim to commit an indecent act or rape in the lower court.

The court below asserted that the victim's statement was credibility in the statement made by the investigative agency under the title "the judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel", and stated in detail the circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on evidence, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and the Defendant did so.