All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence of the first instance court’s adoption, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”)’s assertion on the defectiveness, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

On the other hand, the argument that the lower court failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or found false facts on the grounds for sentencing is ultimately attributable to the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, examining various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the lower court’s punishment, which maintained the first instance court sentenced to 13 years of imprisonment with prison labor, cannot be deemed to be extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the public defender.

2. Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles regarding the attachment order case, it is acceptable to affirm the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced the Defendant to an order to attach an electronic tracking device for ten (10) years, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, to determine that the Defendant is likely to recommit a murder.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error.

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