All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant case in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the charge of attempted rape among the facts charged in the instant case and the charge of indecent act by compulsion on May 12, 2012 is justifiable, 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 attempted rape and the crime of indecent act by compulsion, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, the determination of the sentence is unfair in this case where the defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) were sentenced to a more minor imprisonment

In the same purport, the argument that there is an error in the incomplete hearing on the grounds for sentencing is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The court below is just to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for three years on the ground that the defendant committed two or more sexual crimes, and the risk of recidivism exists, considering all the circumstances shown in the records, such as the age and behavior environment of the defendant, the method and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and the circumstances after the crime. There is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the requirements for the attachment order of an electronic tracking device.

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