1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable that the lower court’s order that the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) disclose the information of the Defendant for five years, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, deeming it difficult to view that there are special circumstances that may not disclose the personal information of the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing is erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

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 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 sentencing of the punishment

2. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the request for attachment order, it is just that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for seven years in view of the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of

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