1. Examining various circumstances, regarding the Defendant’s case, including the Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), the age character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the victim, relationship with the victim, the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the amount of punishment of the lower court, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to ten years of imprisonment, cannot be deemed extremely unfair, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant.

In addition, in full consideration of all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, type of crime, motive, criminal process, result, etc., it is justifiable to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance that ordered the disclosure of personal information for a period of ten years, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for attachment order, in light of the records, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, risk of recidivism by the Defendant.

The judgment of the court of first instance ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of 15 years is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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