All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The argument that the court below did not consider the sentencing guidelines in the judgment below and that the court below erred in incomplete deliberation on the sentencing conditions, violation of the rules of evidence, etc. constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparag. 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 is imposed, and an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, in this case where the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) are sentenced to more minor punishment, the above assertion to the above purport

2. When a defendant files an appeal against a prosecuted case regarding a medical treatment and custody application case, the medical treatment and custody application case shall be deemed to have been filed by an appeal.

However, there is no indication of the reason in the petition of appeal and there is no ground for appeal on this part.

3. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to maintain the judgment of the first instance that ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years, considering the risk of recidivism, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the risk of recidivism.

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