1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

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 against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on robbery, intent of murder, and commencement of commission in the crime of attempted robbery.

In addition, examining various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the age and behavior environment of the defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”), relationship with the victim, motive means and result of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal, the lower court cannot be deemed significantly unfair to sentence 12 years to the defendant.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for attachment order 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 years, deeming that the risk of recidivism exists, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error as

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