Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are guilty of having inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim, but there is no fact that the defendant attempted to have a forced sexual intercourse.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of rape injury based on the statement of the victim without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The court below's order to disclose the defendant's personal information for a period of six years is unfair because it is excessively long-term.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the above sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

In light of the Defendant’s age, health status, etc., the part of the case for which an attachment order is requested is likely to recommit a sexual crime.

Although it is difficult to see that the court below ordered the defendant to install or attach an electronic tracking device for ten years.

Considering the risk of recidivism by a prosecutor, the court below's order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years is excessively short.

Judgment

In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility according to the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle with respect to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s fact-finding on the part of the instant case, the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.

If there are special circumstances to see, the results of the first instance trial and the appellate trial are additionally taken into account until the closing of pleadings.