Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the Defendant and the person who requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the part of the case of the Defendant (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2) There is a risk that the Defendant may recommit robbery in the part of the case where the attachment order is requested.

Although it is difficult to see that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of five years.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (the part not guilty in the judgment of the court below) by the Defendant, after committing the robbery of this case, continued to threaten the victim to have sexually humping with the victim, and threatened the victim with the victim “humping because he had a knife,” and led the victim in the direction of the victim’s house, and the Defendant started to commit rape with the intent to rape the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of attempted rape of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts of rape, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant started the commission of rape with the intent to commit rape, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the charge of attempted rape was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had committed rape.

In full view of the circumstances in the reasoning of the court below acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

2) There is no change in the conditions of sentencing in comparison with the first instance court as to each of the unfair arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor, and the first deliberation is conducted.