1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just that the court below rejected the argument of the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant"), on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the grounds that there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as incomplete deliberation as to mental disability

In addition, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment ordering the disclosure and notification of information on the Defendant for ten years, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, by determining that there is no “special circumstance in which personal information shall not be disclosed”.

In light of the purport of the relevant legal provisions and the record, such measures by the court below are justified, and there is no violation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Furthermore, in light of various circumstances that may serve as the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and process of committing a crime, criminal records, and circumstances after committing a crime, even if considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and defense counsel, the determination of the lower court’s sentence, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to 10 years of imprisonment,

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the risk of recidivism on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law

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