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 found the Defendant guilty of indecent act by compulsion against the victim E 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, without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

In addition, 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, and thus, the determination of the sentence is unreasonable in this case where

The allegation that there was an error of incomplete deliberation as to the amount of punishment or the determination of punishment does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have maintained the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for three years by deeming that the Defendant is at risk of repeating a crime, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine concerning the attachment order.

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