All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The argument that the judgment of the court below regarding a prosecuted case does not properly consider the grounds for sentencing favorable to the defendant and the person subject to an application for the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”), or that there is an error of law by erroneous application of the sentencing guidelines constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

Examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age and behavior environment, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s maintenance of the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for life is extremely unfair.

2. As to the Defendant’s request for attachment order, the lower court did not err in its judgment that upheld the first instance judgment that ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device for twenty (20) years on the ground that the Defendant’s risk of recidivism exists, considering the Defendant’s age, happiness and environment, as well as the motive, means, and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the crime was committed.

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