All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of the charge of quasi-rape among the charges of this case, rape around October 8, 2013, the charge of attempted murder, and the charge of confinement. On the other hand, ordering the Defendant to disclose information about the Defendant for a period of ten years is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the “homicide’s criminal intent”

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to reject the defendant's assertion on mental disorder, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to mental disorder.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sentencing constitutes the 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 allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court with respect to the request for attachment order, it is justifiable that the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found the Defendant to have committed sexual crimes twice or more, and ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years by deeming that the Defendant was at risk of recidivism, and there is no error of law as otherwise

3...