1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that all of the facts charged in the instant case was guilty is justifiable, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the sentencing hearing and sentencing determination method of the fact-finding court by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance of crime or the principle of responsibility in sentencing constitutes an argument of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 not less than ten years is imposed, and an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) were sentenced to more minor punishment, the above assertion is not a legitimate ground for

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order in light of the record, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant is at risk of re-offending and ordered to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence regarding the risk of re-offending.

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