1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable in finding the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of

In addition, the argument that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the remainder of the facts charged in this case is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted in the final appeal that the defendant did not regard it as the ground for appeal or as the subject of ex officio

Furthermore, even in examining records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

2. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, happiness, environment, motive and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances after the crime, the period of attachment of an electronic tracking device cannot be deemed excessive for 10 years maintained by the lower court.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.