The judgment below

The part of the request for medical treatment order shall be reversed.

The request for medical treatment order of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the case of the defendant is erroneous or misunderstanding legal principles as to the facts charged in the case of this case, the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order and the respondent for a treatment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant

In addition to the confession, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant’s sexual organ was inserted in part of the victim’s sexual organ during the victim’s sexual organ, and the lower court, based solely on the Defendant’s confession, recognized rape against the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the rules of mistake of facts or the rules of reinforcement of confession, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even though the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime under the influence of alcohol and without any ability to discern things or make decisions, the lower court did not recognize mental

3) Although there are special circumstances under which the court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (one-three years of imprisonment, etc.) neither disclosure nor notification of personal information to the illegal accused, it is unfair for the court below to order the accused to disclose or notify the personal information (ten years of imprisonment).

B. Although the Defendant did not pose a risk of re-afusing a sexual crime, it is unreasonable for the lower court to sentence the Defendant to attach an attachment order (including the imposition of an attachment order for 20 years and

C. In light of risks, side effects, etc. of pharmacologic treatment on the part of the case of medical treatment order request, it is unreasonable that the court below sentenced the defendant to a medical treatment order (two years).

2. Determination

A. As to the allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the part of the defendant's case, as the defendant himself/herself has shown, the defendant newly raised such assertion in the first instance trial whether he/she did not dispute this part until the court below rendered the judgment.

However, the court below has duly adopted it.