1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted all of the charges of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or by misapprehending

In addition, considering the various circumstances recorded in the records, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, method of crime, the act of the accused before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in the state of rape, indecent act by force, quasi-indecent act, or mental and physical disability at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, there is no illegality of not recognizing mental and physical disorder in the lower judgment.

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 punishment is unreasonable

2. In light of the overall circumstances revealed in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, happiness and environment, the motive and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, the period of attachment of an electronic tracking device cannot be deemed excessive for seven 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.