All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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

In such a case, the argument that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mental disorder or incomplete hearing in the part of the judgment below is not a legitimate ground for 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 allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim 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 seven years, deeming that there is a risk of repeating sexual crimes again, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law

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