The part concerning Defendant C in the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for 6 years.

the amount of seizure, the maximum amount of the seizure.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds of appeal (the 4 years of imprisonment for each of the defendants A, E, and F, the 6 years of imprisonment for each of the defendants C, the 5 years of imprisonment for each of the defendants B, and D) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes by Authority on Defendant C (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes”) provides that “where a person was sentenced to punishment for a specific violent crime and commits a specific violent crime again within three years after the completion or exemption of the execution, punishment shall be aggravated by up to twice the long-term or the short-term punishment prescribed for such crime shall be aggravated.” Article 2(1) provides that “The crimes of Articles 334 and 337 among the crimes of larceny and robbery under Chapter 38 of Part II of the Criminal Act, among the crimes of larceny and robbery, shall be punished by increasing two times the long-term or the short-term punishment prescribed for such crime.”

In addition, the court shall punish the accused who again committed the above violent crime under Article 2 of the Act within three years after having been sentenced to punishment for the violent crime listed in Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc., by aggravated aggravation of repeated crimes under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, not Article 35 of the Criminal Act. The prosecutor's above aggravated application of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, while prosecuted the accused, stated in Article 35 of the Criminal Act the applicable provisions of aggravated repeated crimes in the indictment, and

(2) According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for robbery, injury, etc. at the Daegu District Court on December 21, 2007 and was sentenced to five years due to robbery, injury, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1556, May 14, 2004).

Therefore, even if only Article 35 of the Criminal Act was stated in the indictment of this case as the applicable provisions of aggravated repeated crimes under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, the crime of attempted special robbery of this case, which is a specific violent crime, should have been subject to aggravation of repeated crimes pursuant to Article 3 of the Act, but the court below determined the punishment by aggravated repeated crimes pursuant to Article 35 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C in the judgment