2. Circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake, the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner, the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim E and I, and the degree of damage from the instant robbery is not much significant.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant in collaboration with B by theft of a passenger car owned by the victim E and forcibly taking money and valuables against the victim I, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime. Furthermore, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years on September 28, 2010, which was sentenced to a five-year probation period, and committed such crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant was under the suspension of the execution period. In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.