1. According to the records on the defendant case, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in mistake of facts and incomplete deliberation on mental and physical disorder shall not be a legitimate ground

Furthermore, even if the record is examined, there is no illegality as alleged above.

In addition, 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, the determination of the sentence is unreasonable in this case where

The assertion that the disclosure period of personal information and the notification period of personal information are too unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the Defendant’s request for attachment order, considering the Defendant’s age, happiness and environment, as well as the motive, means, and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, as a whole, various circumstances revealed in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, it is just to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 7 years on the ground that the lower court is likely to commit the recidivism of sexual crimes and recidivism, and there

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