In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

As the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") have filed an appeal only against this, the part of the appeal claiming the attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Electronic Device Attachment Act, as there is no benefit in the appeal.

On the other hand, as long as the defendant filed an appeal against the part of the defendant's case, it is deemed that the defendant filed an appeal against the ex officio observation order of protection pursuant to Articles 21-8 and 9 (8) of the Electronic Device Installation Act.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the part of the judgment of the court below and the order of ex officio observation.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) It is unreasonable to order disclosure and notification of the information of the accused involved in such disclosure and notification order for a period of five years.

(c)

It is unfair to order the accused to restrict employment for five years at juvenile-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for the disabled.

(d)

It is unreasonable to order an improper defendant to undergo a protection observation for a period of five years.

3. Determination

A. The circumstances are favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of and reflects on the crime, the fact that the Defendant suffers from the disability of grade 3 without delay, the fact that the amount of damage caused by theft and fraud is not relatively large, and that part of the damage was returned to the victim, etc.

However, the defendant steals another person's physical card and attempts to steals money from convenience points.