1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, in this case where the defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) rendered a minor sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court with respect to the request for attachment order, it is justifiable that the lower court maintained the first instance court’s order to attach an electronic tracking device for six years, deeming the risk of recommitting a sexual crime to the Defendant, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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