The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight years.

The judgment below

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing on the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. The attachment order of an electronic tracking device issued by the lower court is inappropriate.

2. Determination

A. When the Defendant was discovered to have stolen goods in the victim’s residence, the crime of this case committed an injury to the victim for the purpose of evading arrest, and the nature of the crime is very bad, and the victim appears to have suffered serious fear and physical and mental pain due to the instant case.

In the past, the Defendant has been serving several times as violent crimes such as robbery, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and also committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crimes.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected the mistake.

The defendant was not planned to commit robbery from the beginning, the crime of larceny, which is a basic crime, was committed in attempted crime, and the injury suffered by the victim seems not to be serious.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, in applying the sentencing guidelines to the instant crime, the lower court deemed the scope of the sentencing guidelines to be “nine to 15 years of imprisonment” on the ground that the instant crime is not a repeated crime under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes (see Article 3 of the aforementioned Act) and the lower limit of the sentencing range is considered to be “the case where the upper limit and lower limit of the sentencing range are increased by 1.5 times the amount of punishment,” and thus, the instant crime does not constitute a case where the upper limit and lower limit of the sentencing range are increased by 1.5 times the amount of punishment (see Article 3 of the above Act on Special Cases Concerning Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes).

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc.