1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant case in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court maintained by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of the facts charged. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle

In addition, examining the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance and the records of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and process of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's maintenance of the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the defendant to the punishment of 13 years imprisonment for reasons as stated in its holding is just and there are no errors of unfair sentencing as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. In light of all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, happiness and environment before the Defendant’s age, the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court is justifiable to maintain the first instance court ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for 15 years, deeming that the Defendant is likely to recommit a murder. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of repeating

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