2. There are extenuating circumstances to consider the Defendant’s circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself, and that there was an agreement with the convenience store owner in relation to robbery.

However, the crime of this case is committed by cutting another's bicycle left alone without properly correcting the defendant. After two hours of convenience points, it is very poor that the crime of this case was committed by suppressing the resistance of female employees and taking cash into consideration. The crime of this case is committed by robbery committed by the defendant on July 16, 2012, even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years in September 6, 2012 at the Jeonju District Court sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years in September 6, 2012, and committed the crime of this case only ten months. In full view of all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, family relation, criminal record, relation, character and conduct, environment, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the court below sentenced the minimum punishment within the scope of discretionary mitigation.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.