All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant’s case in light of the records, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendant’s and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”)’s assertion on the mental disorder based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. In light of all the circumstances revealed in the records, including the Defendant’s age, happiness and environment before the Defendant’s age, and motive, means, and consequence of each of the crimes in this case, it is just that the court below maintained the first instance court ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years in deeming that the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes exists, and there is no error of law as otherwise 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.