1. As to the Defendant case, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

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 misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

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 is permitted. As such, in this case where the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order and the person who requested an order for a treatment (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") were sentenced to more minor punishment

Any assertion that an order to disclose or notify personal information and an employment restriction order are improper shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the case for which an attachment order is requested and the case for which a medical treatment order is requested, the lower court maintained the first instance court that ordered the Defendant to install an electronic tracking device for ten (10) years and pharmacologic treatment for five (5) years.

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 misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recidivism, as shown 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.