The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable that the lower court’s order that the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) disclose the information of the Defendant for five years, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, deeming it difficult to view that there are special circumstances that may not disclose the personal information of the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

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 defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable

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 in regard to the request for attachment order, the lower court is justifiable to have maintained the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years by deeming that the risk of 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.