1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “the defendant”) to commit rape but attempted to commit attempted rape, and thereby resulting in bodily injury to the victim. In so doing, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on injury to rape.

Meanwhile, 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. Thus, the determination of the sentence is unreasonable in this case where the defendant

The assertion that there was an error that does not properly consider the circumstances in sentencing 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 ten (10) years, deeming that the risk of recidivism exists, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles

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