All appeals filed by a person requested to attach an attachment order and a prosecutor shall be dismissed.

1. Scope of judgment of party members;

A. On December 6, 2012, the lower court rendered a judgment as to the part of the Defendant case guilty of the charges against the person subject to the request for an attachment order, and sentenced the person subject to the request for the attachment order to a public disclosure and notification for 10 years and 10 years, and to impose an attachment order and an order to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years with respect to the part of the case subject to the attachment order. 2) As to the whole of the lower judgment, the person subject to the request for the attachment order filed each appeal on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing and unfair attachment order and unfair attachment order period for the location tracking device.

On May 3, 2013, the first instance court dismissed both appeals filed by the two accused cases on May 3, 2013, and sentenced the judgment of the court below on the ground that the lower limit of the statutory period of attachment against the person subject to the request for attachment order is 20 years and imposed the attachment order and compliance of the electronic tracking device for 20 years on the person subject to the request for attachment order

3) A person subject to a request to attach an electronic device filed a final appeal on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing of the judgment prior to remanding the entire judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing, allegation of mental and physical disorder, and improper attachment order of an electronic device tracking device, and the Supreme Court issued on July 25, 2013 an order to attach an electronic device for 20 years to the person subject to a request to attach an electronic device (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”).

The part of the case claiming attachment order is reversed ex officio on the ground that there was an error of misunderstanding of legal principles as to retroactive application of the proviso of Article 9(1), and the appeal against the case involving the defendant was dismissed.

B. According to the grounds of appeal and reversal as to the instant case prior to the judgment, the part of the judgment below regarding the Defendant case was separately determined.

Therefore, the subject of this court's trial is limited to the attachment order case.

2.