All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the defendant's case, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is pronounced.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") are sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The assertion that a personal information disclosure order is unfair is not a legitimate appeal as prescribed in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order, in light of the records, the lower court’s judgment is likely to recommit a sexual crime against the

It is reasonable to maintain the judgment of the first instance that ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years.

In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recommitting a sexual crime, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The Defendant’s final appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.