Of the case names of the judgment below, "2013 Jeonno72" shall be corrected to "2013 Jeonno97".

1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without 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 legitimate grounds for appeal

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to maintain the judgment of the first instance that ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 15 years after considering the risk of recidivism, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the period of attachment or the risk of recidivism, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the final appeal is dismissed. Of the case name of the lower judgment, “2013 Jeonno72” is obvious that it is a clerical error in “2013 Jeonno97” and thus, ex officio rectification is made pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.