Since only the Defendant appealed on this issue, the part regarding the attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, as there is no interest in appeal.

Although there is a fact that the defendant misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal saw 21,00 won from the Socoori that was in the victim's room by entering the house of the victim, there is no fact that he forcibly took money by threatening the victim in knife.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of special robbery is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

The sentencing (three years of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant argued the same purport as the assertion of mistake of facts, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail, and in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

In particular, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not threaten the victim in knife, and that the victim's statement against this is not reliable on the ground that the defendant's fingerprints or gene type was not detected in the food knife, which is classified as the tool of the crime of this case in the trial.

However, in order to detect the offender's fingerprints or gene form in the criminal tool, the offender can only be found to have a trace of detecting his/her fingerprints or gene form, and if there is no such trace, he/she shall be found to have the offender.