1. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”)’s assertion as to mental disability as to the prosecuted case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

In addition, according 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the request for attachment order in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal on the order to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years, deeming that the Defendant is likely to recommit a murder crime.

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