1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the prosecuted case, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the facts charged of the instant case is guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in incomplete deliberation on the conditions of sentencing is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") has been sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is inappropriate shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The argument that the Defendant’s location tracking device attachment order is too harsh is not a legitimate ground of appeal regarding the case of the request for attachment order.

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