Judgment

Examining the various sentencing conditions of the instant case, the following are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime; (b) the Defendant did not want criminal punishment against the Defendant by compensating the victim for damages through the Defendant’s mother’s mother in an investigative agency; (c) the victim did not have committed the same kind of crime; and (d) there was no record of criminal punishment by sentence; (c) the mother’s mother was clearly blicking the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant; (d) the relationship with the family is good; and (e) the Defendant would not be avoided twice again.

However, the crime of this case was changed to the purport that the defendant was wearing a gark due to disease, such as Alphar scare, etc. at the trial, and the defendant was wearing a gark at the trial. Thus, the crime of this case was changed to the purport that it was not a planned crime but a contingent crime. However, at the time of police investigation, the police investigation stated to the effect that "B, while coloring the object of the crime of this case at the time of the crime of this case, he saw the victim, saw the gark to find the victim and to commit the crime, and went back into the garkel shop, after leaving the scene after the crime of this case," "B went out of the scene after the crime of this case, her son was worn out, worn out the gark, her upper part of the gark, and moved out the gark to another place (Evidence record 135136-136)." The defendant's specific evidence records and the circumstances at the time of the crime of this case can not be persuasive.

In the first instance, it is excessive to the victim, who is a female, who withdraws the mixed cash from an automatic cash payer.