All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, type of criminal offense, motive, criminal process, result, etc., it is justifiable for the lower court to order the Defendant to disclose personal information for a period of six years, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant.

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred in violation of the principle of balance of punishment, the principle of responsibility, and the principle of proportionality by failing to properly examine the conditions of sentencing in the determination of sentencing is ultimately unfair.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for attachment order, in light of the record, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, risk of recidivism by the Defendant.

The judgment of the court of first instance ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of six years is just, and there is no error 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.