Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, a legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 2011; 201Do200, Aug. 25, 201). Therefore, the part regarding a request for attachment order against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of trial by the court of the trial.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts (the attempted special robbery part) did not have any fact that he had invaded upon the victim F's residence, and did not have colored the stolen object, and the defendant was guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts, despite there is no evidence of the defendant's false confessions and there is no evidence to find the defendant guilty of this part of the charges.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. There is a special reason not to disclose or notify the Defendant’s information, such as that there is no likelihood that the Defendant might repeat a crime, and that the Defendant is the only means of living with the small sales revenue. If personal information is disclosed via the Internet, there is concern that the Defendant’s means of living will cease.

3. Determination

A. We examine the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts, and the victim F (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) also do not steals the object from the police.