The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant’s case, and regarding the part of the attachment order case, the lower court did not have any interest in appeal regarding the part of the attachment order case.

Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, who are deemed provisions on the legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, Aug. 25, 201; 201Do2010, Aug. 25, 201); therefore, the part regarding the attachment order case against the Defendant is not subject to review. Accordingly, the part regarding the attachment order case against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of trial in this Court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence of the court below [the punishment of the victim E (the punishment of a sexual crime and the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.) against the victim E, the punishment of larceny on February 14, 2010, the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims (Special Robbery, etc.) against the victim H, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Habitual Robbery, etc.), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Habitual Robbery, etc.), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Victims on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Victims] is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment of the court below that the defendant denied some of the crimes of this case while the court of this case led to a confession and reflective attitude against all of the crimes of this case. Among each of the crimes of this case, the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims, etc. (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.) against the victim E is in the relation of larceny, etc. for which the judgment of larceny became final and conclusive on February 14, 2010, and the crime of larceny and some of habitual robbery are favorable to the defendant.

However, each of the crimes in this case is that the defendant sits on the driver's seat of the vehicle.