1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the law of logic

In addition, 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 more than ten years is imposed, and an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) were sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is unfair is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. In light of all the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, happiness and environment before the Defendant’s age and motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes in this case, the court below’s maintenance of the first instance court ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 6 years, deeming that the risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crimes exists, is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law or misunderstanding of legal principles regarding the 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.