1. The argument that the court below erred by failing to take into account the circumstances agreed with the victim in determining sentencing constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

Also, the argument that the disclosure order and notification order are too harsh cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court with respect to the request for attachment order, the lower court is justifiable to impose an order on the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years, deeming that the risk of recidivism of sexual crime and recidivism exists, as stated in its reasoning, to prohibit entry into entertainment establishments during the attachment period. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the

In addition, the argument that the attachment order of an electronic tracking device against the defendant is too harsh is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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