All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records of the accused case, the accused and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only asserted mental and physical disability and unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on mental and physical disability based on its stated reasoning, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the mental and physical disorder as

In addition, 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 assertion that there was an error of mistake of facts as to the sentencing grounds is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment 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 seven years, deeming that the risk of recidivism exists, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the attachment order.

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