1. As to a prosecuted case, the argument that the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the determination of punishment constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or 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 requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) were sentenced to a more minor punishment, the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable, and the allegation that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not

2. In light of all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and vision of the instant crime and the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, the lower court is justifiable to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of four years on the ground that the risk of recidivism exists, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recidivism.

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