A. On May 25, 2012, the lower court: (a) recognized the facts charged by the prosecutor and the facts constituting the grounds for the attachment order; and (b) sentenced the person subject to an application for the attachment order to whom the application for the attachment order was filed to the effect that the application for the attachment order was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and six months; (c) completion of the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours; (d) disclosure and notification for seven years; and (e) installation and compliance of an electronic tracking device for five years; (b) on the ground that the person subject to the application for the attachment order filed an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing and the risk of recidivism of the attachment of the electronic tracking device; and (c) on the ground that the lower limit of the statutory attachment period against the person subject to the application for the attachment order was ten years, the lower court reversed the lower judgment on November 15, 2012, and sentenced the person subject to the application for the attachment order to the issuance of an electronic tracking device for ten years.

3. A person subject to a request for attachment order filed an appeal on grounds of misconception of facts as to the risk of repeating a crime regarding the attachment of an electronic tracking device, on the judgment of the court prior to remand. The Supreme Court appealed against the judgment of the court below, but the prosecutor fails to submit the grounds for appeal against the attachment order case, the case subject to a request for attachment order cannot be sentenced more severe than the punishment of the court below in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change because the case subject to the request for attachment order was the same as the case for which the person subject to the request for attachment order filed an appeal, and thus, the judgment of the court prior to remand reversed the part of the case subject to attachment order on the grounds that there was an error of law

B. We examine the grounds for appeal and reversal of the instant case prior to the judgment below.