The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. According to Article 8(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”), not only a person who commits a crime of intrusion by residence but also a person who commits an attempted indecent act by residence but also a person who commits an attempted indecent act by residence, if the victim suffered bodily injury, the crime of bodily injury is established. The penal provision on an attempted indecent act by residence under Article 8(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes under Article 8(1) of the same Act is applicable only to a case where a person commits an attempted indecent act by residence, along with the crime of bodily injury by force under Article 8(1) of the same Act, but also to a case where a person commits an attempted indecent act by residence, or committed an attempted indecent act by force, with the victim’s intent to inflict bodily injury on the victim, and does not apply to the crime of bodily injury by residence, by force under Article 8(1) of

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7138 Decided August 22, 2013, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10058 Decided April 24, 2008, etc.). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court, which did not apply the penal provision on attempted crimes under Article 15 of the Act on Special Cases of Sexual Violence, did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. In addition, Article 8(1) of the Act on Special Cases of Sexual Violence applied only to the reasons pointed out in the ground of appeal cannot be deemed as unconstitutional.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.