1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the lower court was guilty of all of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes due to Quasi-rape and Quasi-Indecent Act (hereinafter “Sexual Punishment Act”) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Sexual Crimes Punishment Act (rape, etc. against the disabled).

2. In a case where the judgment of the court of final appeal is reversed and the case is remanded to the appellate court by the Defendant’s final appeal as to whether the principle of prohibition against disadvantageous change was violated, the appellate court shall not render a sentence more severe than the judgment of the appellate court reversed, as the principle of prohibition against disadvantageous change is applied in relation to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8607 Decided May 26, 2006, etc.). Such a legal principle should equally apply to cases where the appellate court recognizes a new criminal defendant guilty on the ground that there is a legitimate modification of indictment in the original trial after remand.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Do2105, Mar. 25, 1980). According to the records, the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance that ordered the defendant and the person subject to attachment order (hereinafter “the defendant”) to disclose and notify the case for three years, five years, and to attach an electronic tracking device for five years.