All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is justifiable that the court below ordered the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") to disclose information about the defendant for a period of ten years, considering that there is no special circumstance that may not disclose personal information of the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant"), and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err

Meanwhile, 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 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 have maintained the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years by deeming that the Defendant committed sexual assault at least twice and the risk of recidivism was recognized. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, contrary to what is 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.