In addition, both the appeal filed by the respondent A and the defendant B shall be dismissed.

Therefore, the sentencing of the judgment of the court below on the premise that the Defendants committed robbery in a planned manner (the imprisonment with prison labor for each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. With respect to the murder case against the Defendants and the case for which a request for attachment order was filed jointly, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all of the charges, and sentenced the Defendants to imprisonment with prison labor for life, and ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years only for the Defendant A, and dismissed the Defendant B’s request for attachment order.

Since only the Defendants appealed against such judgment of the court below on the ground that the sentencing of the Defendant case was unfair, the scope of the judgment per instance is limited to the case of murder by robbery against the Defendants and the case of Defendant A, who is deemed to have appealed pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, Etc.

The examination shall be made below.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, first of all, the determination as to (i) the planning of the sentencing of the murder case by robbery, first of all, whether the instant crime constitutes the planned murder committed by a person who is under special circumstances in the sentencing guidelines for the crime of robbery; and comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants were willing to prevent robbery against the victim; and during that process, the Defendants were aware that not only robbery but also murder may be prevented from committing robbery, and that the crime of robbery was commenced.