All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant case, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not in a state of mental disorder or mental retardation at the time of committing the instant crime in light of the following: (a) the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the Defendant”); and (b) the Defendant’s act

In light of records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to mental disorder or incomplete hearing.

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or violating the rules of evidence on the conditions of sentencing is ultimately an unfair sentencing argument.

According to 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

2. As to the request for attachment order, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recidivism of a sexual crime.

The argument that an attachment order of an electronic tracking device is improper is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant as the ground of appeal or by the court below as the object of judgment ex officio.

In addition, even after examining the record, there is no illegality in the lower court’s measure that maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to an order to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years.

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