1. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (e.g., deceptive means, indecent act by compulsion, quasi-decent act by compulsion, and the fraud of the Victim K, among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, 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 more 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 request for attachment order in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, in maintaining the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for six years, deeming that the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes and recidivism exists.

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