The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records of the accused case, the accused and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of the appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable is not legitimate

2. As to the case of the request for attachment order, the lower court maintained the first instance court’s conclusion that recognized the Defendant’s risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual assault crimes, based on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment as to the risk of recidivism of sexual crime, even if the grounds for appeal are considered as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

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