Defendant

In addition, the respondent A, the defendant B, and the prosecutor of the attachment order shall be the defendant and the requester A of the attachment order.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the special robbery of misunderstanding the Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant A”), the Defendant was merely using a rank in order to cut the tape when booming the Defendant’s hand and boom, and did not pose a threat to the victim.

B) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (seven years of imprisonment, confiscation, and attachment order of electronic device tracking devices) is excessively unreasonable.

2) Although the Defendant does not pose a risk of repeating robbery, it is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years and to impose an order on the Defendant.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment imposed by the lower court (two years and six months, and confiscation) is unreasonable.

(c)

The prosecutor (unfair sentencing against Defendant A)’s (unfair sentencing with Defendant A)’s above sentence, which the lower court committed against Defendant A, is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the part on Defendant A’s case 1) The summary of the judgment of the court below is as follows, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below’s decision on the part on Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A’s mistake of facts is possible to sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant took a dangerous thing against the victim J and threatened with the threat.

The decision was determined.

(1) From the first police investigation to the present court, the victim J would have threatened the Defendant with a threat that the Defendant was on the Washington.

“The purpose is to make a specific and consistent statement on the location and circumstances at the time of committing the crime.”

(2) The victim J also states in the court below that it is favorable to the defendant. In light of the victim J’s attitude of statement, the victim J is actually the victim J.