All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the part of the Defendant case, the lower court convicted the Defendant on August 14, 2018 of the facts charged of the instant case, on the part of the violation of the Punishment of Violence, Attempted Rape Act (Habitual Injury).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, 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 evaluation of the credibility of statements, without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

In addition, even in light of the record, the lower court did not err by either violating the procedure for examination of evidence or infringing on the Defendant’s right to trial, as alleged in the

The argument that the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations on the normal relation and that there was an error of misunderstanding the interpretation of the law on the conditions of sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, in this case where the defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) rendered a minor sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. With respect to the part of the attachment order case, if the defendant files a final appeal regarding the case, it shall be deemed that an appeal has been filed even regarding the attachment order case.

However, the appellate brief did not state the grounds for appeal and did not state the grounds for appeal in the appellate brief.

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