All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Although examining the Defendant’s case based on the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on forced indecent act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, there are special circumstances in which the court below shall not disclose or notify personal information for reasons as stated in its reasoning.

It is difficult to see

The judgment of the court of first instance ordering the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") to disclose and notify information about the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") for a period of three years. In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, there is no illegality as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate

2. As to the case for which an attachment order is requested, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, finds the Defendant pose a risk of recidivism.

On the other hand, it maintained the judgment of the first instance that ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of three years.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower judgment did not err as 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.