All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine years.

For a period of 10 years, the information on the accused is disclosed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part (1) of the case of the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") by the court below (the first judgment of the court below: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months: the third judgment of the court below: imprisonment of 6 months and 7 years) are too unreasonable.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The first instance judgment dismissing a prosecutor’s request for an attachment order even though the Defendant is likely to repeat robbery, is unreasonable.

2. As the accused and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, the appeal case was tried concurrently in the trial. However, as long as the facts constituting each crime of the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, they should be sentenced to a single punishment and an attachment order, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

3. The phrase “risk of recommitting robbery” under Article 5(4) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as to the part of the request for the attachment order by the court of first instance refers to the possibility of recommitting robbery is not sufficient enough, and it is highly probable that the person who requested the attachment order will destroy legal peace by again committing robbery in the future.

The existence of the risk of recidivism of robbery crime shall be objectively determined by comprehensively assessing various circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the person against whom the attachment order is requested, the motive and means of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the situation after the crime. Such a judgment shall be based on the time of judgment, since it is a assumptive judgment for the future.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2289, 2012Do5, 2012Do5, 2012Do51, May 10, 2012). In full view of the evidence adopted and examined by the first and third instance courts, the Defendant is a criminal defendant in light of the following circumstances.