All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records of the case prosecuted, the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted only mental and physical disability as the grounds for appeal, along with the unreasonable sentencing.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the incomplete hearing or the violation of the rules of evidence is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred by deviating from the discretionary power of sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, 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 defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

2. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court with respect to the request for attachment order, the lower court is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years by deeming that the risk of recidivism and recidivism of sexual crimes exists, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles 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.