The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court as to the Defendant case, the lower court’s maintenance of the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) to disclose information for ten years is justifiable, and there is no error of law 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 punishment is too unreasonable cannot be

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable in maintaining the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach a location tracking electronic device for ten years on the ground that the risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crimes exists, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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