1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case involving a prosecuted case, 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 is permitted. As such, in the instant case where the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) were sentenced to more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal

Meanwhile, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provision that limits the rights of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or an unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of equality

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional.

2. As to the Defendant’s request for attachment order, the lower court ordered the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and vision of the instant crime, the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the risk of recidivism or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is 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.