1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, it is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, contrary to logical and empirical rules, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

On the other hand, considering the various circumstances, including the age and character environment of the defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “the defendant”), relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the amount of the judgment of the court of first instance that upheld the judgment of the court of 25 years, which sentenced the defendant to 25 years of imprisonment, is extremely unfair, even in light of the circumstances asserted on the ground of appeal.

2. As to the case of attachment order, the lower court, in full view of various circumstances revealed in the Defendant’s age, character and character environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, risk of recidivism

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

There is no error as 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.