The number of pages 1 (No. 1) and 1 knife (No. 4) are as follows.

In order to seek jobs as a daily-service construction worker, the Defendant had a mind that he did not seek jobs and did not take money and valuables from living expenses. On February 24, 2019, around 05:06, the Defendant purchased tobacco and drinking water from the “C convenience store” located in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and prepared in advance the victim D (31) who was an employee of the Kaza-si and was in possession of the knova (40 cm in total length, 27 cm in length) with a deadly weapon (27 mm in length in the knife), and took the knife (400,000 won in cash in the knife-si, Changwon-si, and took the knife-si’s knife’s knife.).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Each protocol of seizure and each list of seizure;

1. A copy of confirmation on the identity of the person concerned with the result of an appraisal of the scene of the crime, and robbery;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal accidents (the analysis of CCTV images at the time of committing an offense);

1. Article 334 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Articles 334 (1) and 333 of the Criminal Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the choice of limited imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months to fifteen years;

2. The scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] the general standard [Type 2] the special robbery [the scope of recommended fields and the scope of recommended sentences], the basic area of punishment, three to six years of imprisonment.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, the accused is against the recognition of the crime of this case from an investigative agency to this court;

The amount of damage to the crime of this case is not relatively significant, and some amount was returned to the victim.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant at the time of the new wall.