1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of both rape and bodily injury resulting from rape among the facts charged of the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of rape and injury to rape, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the lower court determined that it cannot be deemed that there was a “special circumstance not to disclose personal information,” and ordered the Defendant to disclose and notify information about the Defendant for ten years only for the crime of rape and injury to rape, based on its stated reasoning.

In light of the purport of the relevant legal provisions and the record, such measures by the court below are justified, and there is no violation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for attachment order in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the attachment order is unfair on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and there is no error in the misapprehension

2. The prosecutor's ground of appeal that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence or exceeded the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee on the circumstances which are the conditions for sentencing in sentencing, constitutes an assertion of unfair sentencing.

However, in the interpretation of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the public prosecutor's determination of the sentence of the court below is light.

The fact of sentencing is recognized against the defendant's interests.