All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that sentenced the disclosure order and notification order for five years, on the ground that the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) should not disclose personal information, on the grounds that the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were guilty of the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding disclosure order and notification order.

According 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years by determining that the risk of recidivism exists, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error

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