All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to the Defendant’s case, the lower court was justifiable in its judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (the act of sexual intercourse with a minor under 13 years of age) on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free conviction by violating the logical and empirical rules.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the court below rejected the argument of the defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) on the mental and physical weakness based on the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts concerning the mental and physical weakness or misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged in the ground of

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, there are special circumstances that the court below should not disclose personal information to the defendant.

It is reasonable to order the disclosure of information about the defendant for seven years as the court's decision that it cannot be seen, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not legitimate grounds for

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order in light of the record, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, likely to recommit a sexual crime against the Defendant.

It is reasonable to maintain the judgment of the first instance that ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years.