1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the argument of the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to mental disorder as otherwise alleged

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sentencing and the principle of responsibility is ultimately unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the above assertion or other argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground

In addition, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which ordered disclosure and notification of information on the defendant for seven years, on the grounds stated in its holding that "any special circumstance that shall not disclose personal information" exists. In light of the purport and records of the relevant legal provisions, such measures of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to disclosure and notification order, contrary to

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the application for attachment order in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten (10) years, considering that the Defendant’s risk of recidivism of sexual crime and recidivism exists, as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

And location tracking of the defendant.