1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where a prosecuted case is sentenced to death penalty, imprisonment with labor for an indefinite term, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, in the instant case where the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) rendered a more minor sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. As to the Defendant’s request for attachment order, considering all the circumstances indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, happiness and environment, motive and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances after the crime, it is justifiable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of five years on the ground that the Defendant is likely to recommit a crime. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recidivism, which is the requirement for the attachment order

The period of attachment of an electronic tracking device cannot be excessive.

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