2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by intrusioning the victim’s house on urban gas pipelines, thereby thefting property, and forcibly taking money and valuables by threatening female victims, and the nature of the crime is heavy in light of the method and frequency of the crime.

Although the Defendant was sentenced two times to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime [the theft and violation of special law (the theft)], the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the repeated crime period (the juvenile protective disposition was issued seven times or more due to special larceny, etc.).

The victims did not reach an agreement with the victims, and the victims want to punish the defendants.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the application of the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission, the sentence of the lower court, which has set the maximum sentence under the law, cannot be deemed unfair, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime in order to raise funds for a blue educational institute in order to achieve a blue life (the Defendant did not yet have much age but has been in a bad family environment; and (b) the Defendant did not commit the instant robbery in a planned manner; and (c) his mistake is in depth).

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.