All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 4(1) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act provides that “A prosecutor may file a request for medical treatment and custody with the competent court where a person subject to medical treatment and custody needs to receive medical treatment and custody,” and Article 4(7) of the same Act provides that “the court may request a prosecutor to file a request for medical treatment and custody when it deems it necessary to perform medical treatment and custody as a result of the examination of a prosecuted case.” In light of the form, content, etc. of the provision, Article 4(7) of the same Act cannot be deemed as imposing an obligation on

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4211, Sept. 14, 2006). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the lower court erred by failing to request a prosecutor to file a medical treatment and custody application.

In addition, 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") was sentenced to a more minor punishment, punishment is too unreasonable.

Any argument that an order for disclosure or notification of personal information is unfair shall not be 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 order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten (10) years, considering the risk of recidivism, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the

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