All appeals are 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, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the part concerning the rape of each minor among the facts charged of the instant case was guilty on or around June 14, 2015, following the lapse of August 23, 2014.

In so determining, 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 relevant legal doctrine, contrary to what is alleged in

In addition, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err by infringing on the right to pleading, defense, and the right to a fair trial of the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The argument that the judgment of the court below violated the principle of trial on evidence concerning the normal relation and violated the principle of free evaluation of evidence is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

Examining various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, purpose, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, as indicated in the record, the sentencing of the lower court sentenced to 13 years imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendant cannot be deemed as extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order, in light of the record, the lower court has a risk of recommitting a sexual crime

It is reasonable to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of ten years.

In so determining, the lower court did not err as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The Defendant’s final appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.