The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

80 hours per the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (1) erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the above, and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) discontinued the crime with the intent to commit the instant crime, and thus constitutes an attempted suspension.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence (two years and six months, etc.) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2) Inasmuch as the dismissal of the request for attachment order by the Defendant is recognized to pose a risk of recidivism, the lower court’s dismissal of the request for attachment order by this case

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to Defendant 1’s assertion on the Defendant’s factual mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is as follows: (a) the victim strongly resisted by the records, namely, ① the victim’s body, etc. at the time of the instant case, and b) the victim escaped from the Defendant in an urgent situation to the extent that the victim’s cell phone and bank can be damaged in the damaged place; and (b) the victim immediately after the damage was inflicted, as an adjacent convenience store, attempted to assault

In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed by the defendant's voluntary attempt, it is difficult to view that the crime of this case was committed by the defendant's own, because the defendant requested for assistance and returned again to the place of damage, such as the employees of convenience stores, and reported immediately 112

The Court ruled.

B) Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

2) As to the unlawful assertion of sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of injury, and the instant crime is fooding by the Defendant.