The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case and the part of the case for attachment order shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of three years and six months.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the Defendant case, that ordered the attachment of a location tracking device (hereinafter “electronic device”) for ten years with respect to the part regarding which the request for attachment order was filed, and that dismissed the prosecutor’s request with respect to the part regarding which the request for probation order was filed.

On the other hand, since only the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") have appealed, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the probation order claim.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the request for probation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not rape a victim while committing robbery, but only after rape, the Defendant committed robbery or larceny with intent to commit robbery, and thus, the Defendant should be deemed to have committed “the crime of special robbery and robbery” or “the crime of special rape and larceny,” rather than committing special robbery. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges of special robbery, so it erred by misapprehending of legal principles or misapprehending of legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic device for 10 years, even though it is impossible to readily conclude that the Defendant was in danger of repeating a sex crime or robbery.

3. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal before determining ex officio.

A. The lower court’s judgment on the part of the Defendant case 1 has the relationship between both the following conclusive judgments and the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.