The judgment of the court below in part 1 of the judgment below is rendered on December 7, 2012.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the first ground of appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of attempted rape in 2005 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, Article 12 and Article 7(1) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof (amended by Act No. 10261 of Apr. 15, 2010), Article 297 of the Criminal Act, Articles 12 and 8-2(1) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (amended by Act No. 9110 of Jun. 13, 2008), Article 297 of the Criminal Act, Article 297 of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (hereinafter “instant crime”), which the court below found guilty of the crime, provides that the statutory penalty shall be imposed by imprisonment for a limited term of not less than five years, and Article 249(1)3 of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 207) is the statute of limitations of limitations of this case.

However, Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which was enacted and enforced by Act No. 10258 on April 15, 2010, provides that "The statute of limitations on the prescription of a sexual crime against a minor shall run from the date on which the minor who suffered from the sexual crime reaches the age of majority, notwithstanding Article 252(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act," and Article 3 of the Addenda of the above Act provides that "Article 20 shall apply to any sexual crime committed before this Act enters into force, which has yet to be completed." In this case where the victim was a minor on December 10, 192 at the time of the instant crime, which was a minor at the time of the enforcement of the above Act.