1. As to the defendant's case, the argument that the defendant had no intention to rape at the time of committing the crime against the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant's appeal was made on the ground of appeal or the court below did not have any intention to rape ex officio.

B. Even if examined, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the Defendant’s age and character environment, relationship with victims, motive means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, etc., the determination of the lower court’s punishment, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to ten years of imprisonment, is extremely unfair.

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 first instance judgment ordering disclosure and notification order for a period of seven years on the ground that even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant, there are no special circumstances that the lower court should not disclose personal information to the Defendant, and that there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment with respect to the claim for attachment order, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, has the risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crime against the Defendant.

In light of the above, it is justifiable to maintain the judgment of the first instance court that imposed an order to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of ten years on the basis of matters to be observed such as the prohibition of late night outing time. There is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided by all participating Justices.