2. The Defendant shows an attitude against the Defendant, recognizing the instant crime.

The degree of injury suffered by the victim is not relatively more severe, and the amount of strong money is not so significant.

There seems to be no history of criminal punishment prior to the instant case, and there seems to be circumstances to consider the background leading to the instant crime in light of the family relationship and living environment of the Defendant.

However, the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed by taking the part of the victim’s head, who is an employee, from a convenience store to a small-scale disease, and taking cash into consideration the method of the crime and the risk thereof, and cannot be deemed to be less than the Defendant’s liability in light of the method and risk of the crime.

The Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, and did not recover from the damage.

In addition to these circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime; and (c) where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court; and (d) where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case; (b) the lower court’s sentence which sentenced the lowest of the scope of the statutory penalty, which limited to discretionary mitigation, appears to be appropriate for the liability; and (c) it is not

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

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