The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On January 18, 1983, the court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's request regarding the defendant's case and the case for which a request to attach an attachment order was filed. Since only the defendant appealed, the part of the attachment order case has no interest in appeal. Thus, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, this part is excluded from the scope of judgment of this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do2823, 82Do611, Jan. 18, 1983).

A. In fact, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the victim was a disabled person, and the victim started her own fluencing and her fluencing fluencing at the victim and bencing, and the Defendant rejected and interrupted the victim by her flucing his son, and at the Defendant’s home, the Defendant’s flucing of the victim’s her flucencing from the victim’s clothes, and the Defendant’s flusing and sexual intercourse was committed under the agreement with the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, 120 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of disclosure and notification of information) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant, from the prosecution to the court of the court of the court below, tried to see that the bus was cut by having satisf in the event of the “F Center parking lot” from the prosecution to the court of the court below.

Therefore, it is necessary to see that the victim's house is between J (the victim's house at the same place with the defendant on the day of this case) and J's house, so whether the house of J is the same as the house of the defendant.

After entering the apartment settlement, the victim wanted to go up with his house.

Therefore, he goes back to his house.

A victim.