1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to the Defendant case, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the court below rejected the argument of the defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant"), based on the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, about the mental and physical disorder, and there is no error of misconception of the facts about the mental and physical disorder or incomplete deliberation as alleged

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, there are special circumstances that the court below should not disclose personal information to the defendant.

It is reasonable to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the disclosure of information against the defendant for a period of five years, and there is no error of misconception of facts or lack of deliberation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, considering various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the lower court’s punishment, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to 11 years’ imprisonment with prison labor, cannot be deemed extremely unfair, even when considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the national defense counsel.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order in light of the record, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, likely to recommit a sexual crime against the Defendant.

The judgment ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of five years.