The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records as to the accused case, the accused and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of the appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by mistake of facts cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous due to violation of the rules of evidence or misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

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 argument that the sentencing of the punishment is unfair

2. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years, deeming that the risk of recommitting a sexual crime and a sex crime exists, was justifiable, and rejected the grounds for appeal disputing the request.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the recidivism of sexual crimes and the risk of recidivism, even in light of the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, in light of the legislative purpose and contents of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. for Specific Crime Offenders, the provision of the proviso of Article 9 (1) of the above Act that increased the minimum limit of the period of attachment in relation to "where a person under 19 years of age commits a specific crime" cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution.