Defendant

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

The text of the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

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

B. The judgment of the court below that ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device on the ground that the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “defendants”) are not recognized as a robbery and the risk of recidivism. Thus, the judgment below that ordered the attachment of an electronic tracking device is improper

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the fact that the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, the fact that the said crime was committed in an attempted attempt, and that some of the money (three million won) was deposited for the victim in the original judgment and the trial court, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, the criminal law is dangerous and the possibility of criticism is high in that the defendant has already been sentenced to imprisonment three times with prison labor due to robbery-related crimes, and in particular, on August 20, 2009, sentenced to five years of imprisonment with prison labor due to robbery-related crimes, etc. on August 18, 2013, and made a withdrawal of money by threatening the female employees of convenience stores by carrying lethal weapons in the night before the lapse of two months after the execution of the sentence was completed.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim so that he/she can go to the trial.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Considering the above grounds for sentencing and other circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, circumstances surrounding and degree of crime, and the circumstances after crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the allegation that the attachment order was unfair, the lower court applied the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant repeatedly committed robbery on several occasions, and the Defendant committed the instant crime only two months after completing the sentence, such as robbery and bodily injury, and ② the assessment of the risk of recidivism by Korean criminal offenders (KSAS-G) against the Defendant.