1. Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to the Defendant case, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in this case for the reasons indicated in its holding, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 (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, a final 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.

The assertion that an order to disclose or notify personal information for a period of three years against the defendant is unfair shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal as prescribed in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding a request for attachment order in light of the records, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, has the risk of repeating sexual crimes against the Defendant.

In light of the foregoing, it is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of three years, 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.