The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the victim’s expression of intent not to punish the victim, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of non-compliance with an order

Meanwhile, the argument that there was an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as the ground of appeal or that the court below was

2. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the Defendant’s age and behavior environment, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances after the crime, it is just for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years on the ground that the Defendant is likely to repeat a crime. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recidivism, contrary to what is alleged

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