The appeal is 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 and the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of injury resulting from rape or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of injury resulting from rape or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") submitted a certificate of intention to a participatory trial to the first instance court on August 13, 2012, but the defendant expressed his intention not to want a participatory trial to the first instance court on August 14, 2012, and the first instance court can find out the fact that the first instance court made a decision not to a participatory trial. Thus, the first instance court unfairly infringed the defendant's right to a participatory trial.

there is no error of law by the court of original judgment or by failing to correct it.

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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s character and conduct, age, content of each of the instant crimes, motive and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant is in danger of re-offending is justifiable. In so determining, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mistake of facts or the risk of re-offending

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.