Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of attempted quasi-rape of a minor under the age of 13 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, it did not err by violating the logical and empirical rules and by misapprehending the bounds of the principle
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, details of each of the instant crimes, motive and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is justifiable for the court below to maintain the first instance court’s decision ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years on the ground that the Defendant is in danger of recidivism. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the risk of recidivism, as otherwise
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.