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 was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of attempted rape and arrest among the facts charged of the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison 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 requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) rendered a minor sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the Defendant’s request for attachment order, considering all the circumstances indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, happiness, environment, motive and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the crime, it is justifiable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years on the ground that the Defendant is likely to repeat a crime. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recidivism, which is the requirement for the attachment order of an electronic

The period of attachment of an electronic tracking device cannot be excessive.

3. All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.