1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the argument of the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) regarding the mental and physical disorder based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the mental and physical disorder

In addition, examining various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the age, character, intelligence, and environment of the defendant, the motive and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, the determination of the sentence of the court of first instance that maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced the defendant 20 years of imprisonment cannot be deemed extremely unfair.

2. According to the record regarding the request for attachment order, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted only the mental and physical disorder and unreasonable sentencing of the prosecuted case as the grounds of appeal.

In such cases, the argument that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which maintained the judgment ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years on the premise that the defendant is likely to recommit the murder crime is illegal is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the claim for attachment order 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.