1. The argument that the judgment of the court below erred in incomplete deliberation on the grounds for sentencing commencement constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") has been sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is inappropriate shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, considering the various circumstances indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, power, background, and method of crime, it is just that the court below issued an order to disclose personal information for three years on the ground that it cannot be deemed that there are special circumstances that the defendant should not disclose or notify personal information as stated in its reasoning, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the defendant. There is no error

2. In light of the Defendant’s age, happiness and environment before the Defendant’s age, motive and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances revealed in the records following 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 five years by deeming that the risk of recidivism of sexual crime and recidivism exists, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning, and there is no error 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.