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 the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In this case, the argument that the court below erred in finding facts or not recognizing the defendant's mental health is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, the lower court did not err in its determination as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on sentencing conditions or by exceeding the inherent limits of mistake of facts and sentencing constitutes an allegation of 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 argument that the sentencing of the punishment

In addition, the argument that the judgment will be sentenced after the period of probation expires cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The lower court’s maintenance of the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for six years is justifiable as it is in accordance with the relevant Act, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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