1. As to the Defendant case, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent to rape.

According to Article 383 (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 is imposed, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Defendant

In this case where a requester for an order to observe a protective order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") is sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate appeal.

2. As to the case of a claim for an order to observe the protection, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, likely to recommit sexual crimes against the Defendant

Based on the judgment, the first instance judgment ordering the observation of protection for three years was maintained.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment as otherwise alleged in the grounds 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.