I would like to say.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. for Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the request for attachment order against Defendant A is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, and the case number of the request for attachment order is not given in the trial.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unreasonable to apply Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes, which was not prosecuted by the prosecutor to Defendant B (legal scenarios).

B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (e.g., Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant B: 5 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Defendant B’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) Domination, and the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes (amended by Act No. 12198, Jan. 7, 2014; hereinafter the same applies)

Article 3 provides that "in cases where a person has been sentenced to punishment for a specific violent crime and has again committed a specific violent crime within three years after the completion or exemption of the execution thereof, punishment shall be aggravated by up to twice the maximum or minimum term of the punishment prescribed for such crime," and Article 2 (1) provides that "specific violent crime subject to the above Act" shall be listed. Thus, the court shall punish the defendant who has again committed such violent crime within three years after he/she has been sentenced to punishment for a violent crime listed in Article 2 of the above Act, not Article 35 of the Criminal Act, but Article 3 of the above Act, and punish him/her for a repeated crime under Article 3 of the above Act.