1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant case in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of all special intimidation and rape among the facts charged in the instant 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 misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, a final appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair in this case where the defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) are sentenced to a more minor punishment is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

Other grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court with respect to the claim for attachment order, in light of the evidence that the lower court maintained, the lower court is likely to recommit a sexual crime against the Defendant.

In light of the above, it is just to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of five years, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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