1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, 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 more 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") is sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

On the other hand, the Defendant stated in the notice of the appellate brief that “the Defendant committed the instant crime in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder (the state of mental disorder or mental disorder)” and did not state specific reasons therefor. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have submitted legitimate grounds for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for attachment order in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have maintained the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for three years by deeming that the risk of recidivism exists, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and there is no error as otherwise alleged in

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