All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of rape with the victim E among the facts charged of the instant case, and, on the other hand, ordered the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) to disclose personal information for a ten-year period, deeming that there are no special circumstances for not disclosing personal information. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the disclosure order

In addition, considering the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion on mental and physical disability, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the injury by rape against the victim N is only a ground for appeal or by the lower court’s ex officio determination that the Defendant did not have any such ground for appeal, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, the lower court did not err in its determination as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by deviating from or abusing the discretionary power of sentencing constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, according 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, it is argued that the amount of the punishment is unreasonable.