The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years and six months.

A golf bond seized (No. 1), ..

The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

On April 10, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment with prison labor (thief) due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Daegu District Court, and both the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed against the said judgment.

On October 10, 2013, the Daegu High Court, the appellate court, accepted the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the attempted special robbery, and reversed the judgment of the lower court, and sentenced the Defendant to six years, by applying Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010), Article 329 of the Criminal Act, etc.

On December 26, 2013, the Defendant appealed and filed an appeal, but the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on the same day.

After that, on February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court sentenced Article 329 of the Criminal Act to the effect that Article 5-4 (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010) is unconstitutional (merger 16, 19, 23 (Joint)). Defendant filed a petition for a retrial on June 14, 2016, and this Court rendered a request for a retrial on a judgment subject to a retrial based on the above legal provision that was determined as unconstitutional on January 5, 2017, the Constitutional Court decided to commence a retrial on the ground that there was a cause of re-examination under Article 47 (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010). The foregoing decision to commence a retrial

As to the Defendant’s factual misunderstanding of the summary of the grounds for appeal (or an attempted special robbery), the Defendant alleged, on the initial grounds of appeal, that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (defence crime, etc.), but withdrawn the above assertion on the first trial date after the commencement of reexamination

The defendant was under request from AG for unjust delivery of a building.