1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intentional act

The argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of violation of the rules of evidence as to sentencing 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") 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 regarding the request for attachment order in light of the record, the lower court is justifiable to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for three years on the ground that the Defendant was in danger of recidivism of sexual crime and recidivism, and there is no error as otherwise 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.