In addition, all appeals filed by the requester for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The argument in the statement of grounds of appeal that the Defendant and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed the instant case on the first trial date at the appellate trial, unlike the instant facts charged, the Defendant stated that the first crime place at the instant case is a lost parking lot B, and that there was no knife in the unmanned telecom, and that the victim withdrawn money from the automatic telecomponing machine and delivered it to the Defendant, the Defendant stated that the Defendant’s ground for sentencing should be considered in terms of the course and method of the instant crime. The lower court’s punishment (eight years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable and it is unfair that the Defendant committed the instant case (unfair attachment order). Thus, the Defendant does not pose no risk of recommitting robbery the robbery.

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined as to the Defendant’s wrongful assertion on the Defendant’s complaint regarding the Defendant’s attachment order. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated and the previous investigation document, namely, ① the Defendant was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment by the Daegu High Court on February 9, 2006 due to special robbery, etc. and again committed robbery in the instant case on June 2, 2017 after the execution of the sentence was completed by the Daegu High Court. ② the previous crime was committed by intimidation the female from a car with a lethal weapon, etc., and the Defendant forcibly took money and valuables from the car. The instant crime was also committed by threatening the female victim as a deadly weapon in the car to force money and valuables. ③ The Defendant’s recidivism risk was similar to the object and place of the crime; ③ the Defendant’s recidivism risk assessment method with a total point of 18 points as a result of the adult recidivism risk assessment tool (KORAS-G).