All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court maintained by the lower court, the lower court’s conviction of indecent act among the facts charged in this case is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, in this case where the defendant and the respondent for an order to attach an electronic device are sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that

Meanwhile, the argument that the disclosure order and notification order are too harsh is not a legitimate ground for appeal as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for attachment order in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant and the respondent for attachment order to attach an electronic tracking device for three years on the basis of the fact-finding of conviction regarding the crime of indecent act in the Defendant’s case, and there is no error as alleged

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