1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to the prosecuted case, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special robbery, rape, etc.), and maintained the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant and the person subject to an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) to disclose information about the information about the person subject to the attachment order for ten years (hereinafter “defendants”), is justifiable,

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the mental and physical disorder on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In addition, examining various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and process of committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, it is extremely unreasonable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to 12 years of imprisonment.

2. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court with respect to the request for attachment order, the lower court is justifiable to maintain the first instance court ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years by deeming that the risk of recidivism of sexual crime and recidivism exists. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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