All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Although examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, 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 permitted. Thus, in this case where the defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) rendered a minor sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the defendant's personal information disclosure order and notification order are unfair does not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for attachment order in light of the evidence, it is justifiable for the lower court to have maintained the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten (10) years, on the basis of the fact-finding that the Defendant’s case was found guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape) and quasi-rape, among the Defendant’s case, on the basis of the

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