1. According to the records as to the accused case, the accused and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of the appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misapprehending legal principles as to mental disorder is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the Defendant’s age and behavior environment, relationship to victims, motive, means, and consequence of each crime, the circumstances after each crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court that maintained the first instance court, which sentenced 15 years to the Defendant, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the public defender, cannot be deemed unfair.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have maintained the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten (10) years by deeming that the risk of recidivism exists, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the attachment order.

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