Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the defendant's case and the part concerning the attachment order of electronic tracking device.

1. On the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment regarding the part of the defendant's case was pronounced guilty, and the first instance judgment regarding the part concerning the request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device (hereinafter "request for attachment order") was rendered a judgment ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for 15 years, and the prosecutor's request regarding the part concerning the request for probation order was dismissed.

On the other hand, only the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") filed an appeal.

Therefore, the above part shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc., as there is no benefit to appeal against the defendant regarding the part of

On the other hand, there is no particular reason for appeal concerning the application for attachment order in the petition of appeal or statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant.

However, as long as the defendant filed an appeal against the accused case among the judgment of the first instance, it is deemed that the defendant filed an appeal against the application for attachment order pursuant to Article 9 (8) of the Electronic Device Attachment Act.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial on the first instance judgment is limited to the part of the defendant's case and the case of attachment order.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 16 years, with prison labor for 6 months, with prison labor for 6 months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant filed an appeal against the Defendant’s case and the second lower judgment among the lower judgment on the scope of ex officio judgment and reversal.

This Court decided to hold a joint hearing of each of the above appeals cases.

Each crime of the first and second original judgment is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment imposed on concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the defendant.