1. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the crime of this case by the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is not deemed to have been committed in the state of mental disorder or mental and physical disability due to drinking or mental disorder, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court of first instance ordering information disclosure and employment restriction for five years, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal in maintaining the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for six (6) years, deeming that the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes and recidivism exists,

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