1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant case, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, in this case where the Defendant and the requester for an order to observe the protection order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable is too unreasonable is not a legitimate appeal.

In addition, the argument that the disclosure order or notification order of personal information against the defendant is unfair cannot be a legitimate appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record with respect to the claim for observation and order to protect, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, has the risk of repeating sexual crimes

It is just to order the observation of protection for three years, and there is no error of law as 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.