1. Examining various circumstances, such as the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the defendant”), the relationship between the victims, the motive, means and consequence of each crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as indicated in the records of the case of the defendant, the lower court’s sentencing that maintained the judgment of the first instance court, which sentenced 30 years imprisonment to the defendant, is extremely unfair, even in light of the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

2. The lower court maintained the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years, deeming that the Defendant’s request for an attachment order is likely to recommit a sex crime again.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on risk of recommitting sexual crimes, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. The Defendant’s final appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.