The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) used the case constituted dangerous articles under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal for erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine disputing such determination.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on dangerous articles under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

2. The lower court maintained the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years, deeming that the Defendant’s risk of repeating a crime exists, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recidivism in the attachment order, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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