1. The argument that a prosecuted case contains an error of incomplete deliberation as to the circumstances under which the judgment of the court below is the condition for sentencing, or an error in the application of statutes in the judgment of the court below constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing

However, according to 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, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") is sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for attachment order in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten (10) years on the ground that the risk of recidivism regarding sexual crimes exists, and there is no error as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal

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