1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found all the remainder of the facts charged except for the threat of force around June 21, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case, and ordered the Defendant and the person subject to attachment order to disclose and notify information about the person subject to attachment order for ten years, is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence,

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without 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 respondent for an order to attach an electronic device are sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to order the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

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