Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. The court below's scope of the judgment of this court is to find guilty of a prosecuted case, to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years, to dismiss the prosecutor's request for probation order, and only the defendant and the person subject to the request for probation order (hereinafter "defendant") filed an appeal. Notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter "Electronic Monitoring Act"), as there is no benefit of appeal as to the part of the request for probation order, the court below excluded this part from the scope of the judgment of this court.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the defendant's case and the attachment order claim.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of the defendant's case (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight years, confiscation) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the circumstances such as the Defendant’s failure to recommit robbery and return to society normally, it is unreasonable for the lower court to issue an attachment order to a location tracking device (hereinafter “order to attach an electronic device”) to the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. As to the part of the defendant's case, considering the various circumstances described in the "decision of sentence" column of the judgment of the court below, and other factors, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, intelligence, environment, relationship to victims, motive and means of crime and the result of crime, etc., the court below's punishment against the defendant is too excessive to the extent that the court below is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion imposed on the defendant following discretionary mitigation.