1. As to the Defendant case, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, on the grounds as indicated 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 the defense of a political party and the physical and mental weakness

In principle, whether to adopt the application for examination of evidence is not necessary by the court at its discretion.

In determining a person, an investigation may not be conducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 2011). Thus, even if the lower court did not accept the application for mental appraisal by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), it cannot be deemed unlawful.

Examining the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed extremely unfair to maintain the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to 12 years of imprisonment, even in light of the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is justifiable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years, and to maintain the first instance court at which the obligation was imposed, on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the risk of recidivism, as 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.