1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal against a prosecuted case on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten

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. As to the Defendant’s request for attachment order, the lower court did not err in its judgment that upheld the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years on the ground that the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime exists, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, considering the Defendant’s age, happiness and environment, as well as the motive, means, and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the crime.

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