1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”)’s mental and physical disorder based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the mental and physical disorder.

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 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

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years after considering the risk of recidivism, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the risk of recidivism.

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