2. The lower court invoked the circumstances considered in determining the Defendant’s punishment as is, as follows:

The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is justifiable in its judgment on the following grounds: “The Defendant’s act of separating and damaging the electronic device in a contingent manner after the Defendant’s gathering and destroying the electronic device; the fact that part of the property taken by the Defendant was seized and returned to the victim; or the Defendant’s act of taking advantage of the circumstances indicated in the trial process of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relations, circumstances, and circumstances after committing the instant special robbery, were comprehensively considered in consideration of the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act; the Defendant’s act of taking advantage of the circumstances indicated in the records and pleadings, and the existence and meaning of sentencing, etc. was released in the course of taking advantage of the criminal fact that the Defendant had been released by a sentence of two years and six months; and the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim of the instant special robbery; and the Defendant did not take into account all the factors indicated in the trial process of the instant case.”

On the other hand, there was no reason to change the sentence of the court below in favor of the defendant.

Therefore, the sentencing of the court below, which is conducted within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines following the consideration of the above sentencing conditions, is just and cannot be deemed to be excessively unreasonable.

3. 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.