1. Examining the evidence duly adopted 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 determined that the Defendant was guilty of the charge of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of attempted rape, contrary to what is alleged

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.

2. As to the claim for attachment order, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or mistake of the facts as to the recidivism of sexual crimes and the risk of recidivism, is alleged to the effect that the Defendant did not make it a legitimate ground for appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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