The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance as to the prosecuted case, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance ordering disclosure of information about the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody and the requester for attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) for ten years, and there is no violation of the Constitution as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant 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 more 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. As long as 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 as 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 lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, it is justifiable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years on the ground that the risk of recidivism exists, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and there is no violation of the Constitution, contrary to what is alleged in the

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