1. As to Defendant case, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred in violation of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of accountability constitutes an unfair argument for sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed 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.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, likely to repeat a crime by the Defendant.

It is reasonable to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of ten years, and there is no violation of law 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.