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 and the first instance court as to the Defendant’s ground of appeal by the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”), the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) and violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) on October 6, 201 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty and acquitted the defendant on the ground that there was no proof of a crime against the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape) against the defendant on August 27, 2011 and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) on October 7, 2011 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the evidence collection and the determination

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court of first instance that ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device on the ground that there is no evidence that the requirements prescribed in Article 5(1) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. for Specific Criminal Offenders have been met, and dismiss the prosecutor's request for this part of the case. In so doing, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending legal principles as to the attachment

3. Conclusion of appeal