The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of three years and six months, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the defendant was found to have had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, in light of the background, means and methods of the crime in this case, the defendant's act before and after the crime in this case, and the circumstances after the crime.

does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal disputing mental and physical weakness is without merit.

Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case regarding the unfair argument of sentencing, the following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant appears to reflect the wrongness while committing the crime; (b) the commission of robbery by the basic offender was committed in attempted crimes; (c) the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim in the lower court; and (d) there was no history of criminal punishment exceeding the fine after being sentenced to suspended sentence in 1974.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, where the defendant prepared excessive amount of money in advance, intrudes into the house of an elderly female leader, threatened with excessive withdrawal of money and valuables, and led the victim to an attempted crime. In the process, the victim suffered an injury requiring medical treatment of approximately two weeks of care. In light of the details and methods of the crime, place, degree of damage, relationship with the victim, etc., the crime and the nature of the crime are bad and bad, and the victim seems to have sworn and fears about mental shock and fears in addition to physical damage, etc.

As above, the defendant is favorable to or.