1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the evidence duly admitted, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of rape injury among the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the principle of logic and experience, or by violating Articles 8-2, 10, and 13 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes.

In addition, pursuant to 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 more 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. As to the claim for attachment order, the argument that the attachment order of an electronic tracking device for 15 years is too harsh is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

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