All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The argument that the judgment of the court below did not properly reflect the facts against the rules of evidence and the normal relation due to the incomplete hearing and thus, the sentencing condition was established unfairly constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, examining various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, criminal records, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of punishment by the court of first instance which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced 10 years to the defendant cannot be deemed to be extremely unfair, even in light of various circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the part of the appellate brief for Defendant’s submission that “the court below erred by violating the Constitution, laws, orders, and rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment,” is merely stated in such assertion, and did not state specific reasons, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the disclosure order or notification order of personal information against the defendant is improper cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the claim for the attachment order, the argument that the attachment order period is too unfair is not a legitimate ground 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.