1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant’s case in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the assertion on the mental and physical weakness of the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of not recognizing the mental and physical weakness as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below did not properly consider the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act is an unfair argument for sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order in light of the record, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, has the risk of recidivism and recidivism of 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 two years, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the risk of recidivism, 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.