1. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that found Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower judgment did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

Examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing indicated in the record, such as the age, character and behavior environment, relationship with the victim, motive and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc. of the Defendant and the requester of the protective order (hereinafter “Defendant”), as indicated in the record, the lower court’s sentencing that maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced ten years to imprisonment with prison labor against the Defendant is extremely unfair.

2. In a case where a request for protection observation order is filed by a defendant as to the defendant's case, the appeal shall also be deemed to have been filed as to the request for protection observation order.

However, the head of the appeal and the reasons for the appeal did not state the grounds for objection.

3. The Defendant’s final appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.