1. The allegation that the lower court erred by exceeding the discretionary power in sentencing constitutes an unfair allegation in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") are sentenced to more minor punishment, the argument that such assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order, in light of the record, the lower court has a risk of recommitting a sexual crime

It is reasonable to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of five years.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recommitting a sexual crime, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The Defendant’s final appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.