1. According to the records of the case prosecuted, the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “defendants”) appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as well as unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawal of the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the first trial of the court below, thereby leaving only the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, an appeal is not allowed to be filed with the Supreme Court on the ground of a new argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence adopted by the court below and the records, various circumstances such as the defendant's age, criminal relation relation, motive and progress of each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below cannot be deemed to have a substantial reason to view that the defendant's measure of maintaining the court of first instance, which sentenced 10 years to imprisonment with prison labor and 2 crimes of this case as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance and 3 crimes of this case, was extremely unfair.

In addition, other grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles regarding the request for attachment order, the lower court’s issuance of an order to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years to the Defendant for reasons stated in its holding is acceptable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the crime of violation of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, or by violating the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation.