All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records of the accused case, the accused and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intentional act in the crime of attempted robbery and the admissibility of the protocol of examination of the suspect prepared by the public prosecutor is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, there is no error in the judgment below as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, examining various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, intelligence and environment, and motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the lower court’s punishment, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to 20 years of imprisonment, is extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted by a state appointed defense counsel.

2. The argument that the defense counsel’s oral statement of grounds of appeal was not submitted with respect to the case of the request for attachment order does not constitute grounds of appeal under each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis under Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, and thus, it does not constitute legitimate

3. All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.