All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The selection of evidence and the recognition of facts with respect to the defendant's case belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is acceptable to have determined that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of inducing sexual intercourse among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds and circumstances stated in its reasoning and rejected the Defendant’s and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”). In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err 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

In addition, the court below maintained the first deliberation conclusion that ordering disclosure and notification of the information about the defendant for the period of three years only for the rape as stated in its reasoning. In light of the purport of the relevant legal provisions and records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground 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. As to the case of the request for attachment order, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, has the risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crime against the Defendant.

Recognizing this case’s attachment order, the first deliberation conclusion was maintained.

The judgment below

Examining the grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the recidivism of sexual crimes and the risk of recidivism, even if the grounds for appeal were to be considered.

3...