The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that each of the instant facts charged (excluding the charge of indecent act by force against the victim C, who does not dispute the grounds of final appeal, on April 2, 2010) is justifiable. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc.

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparag. 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, in this case where the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) were sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate

2. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s character and conduct, age, content of each of the instant crimes, motive and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant is in danger of re-offending is justifiable. In so determining, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mistake of facts or the risk of re-offending

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