1. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the age, occupation, and criminal record of the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “the defendant”), the court below’s issuance of an order for disclosure and notification for a period of three years on the ground that the court below is justifiable, unless there are special circumstances that the disclosure of personal information of the defendant is prohibited.

There is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in the violation of law in the judgment of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been pronounced. As such, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the order to observe the protection of the defendant and the order to attend a lecture is so excessive that it is improper to do so cannot be a legitimate appeal as provided in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. The argument that the attachment order of an electronic device against the defendant is improper because it is too excessive shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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