2. The crime of robbery in the instant case is deemed to have been committed by the Defendant with heavy water purifiers in the victim J’s face in order to have the balth, and the nature of the crime is not very good in light of the method of the crime. The victim J’s face and body was damaged by the Defendant’s intrusion into the industrial office in the instant case. The special larceny in the instant case is highly likely to criticize the Defendant as theft of property. Until this court, the Defendant did not agree with the victim J and the victim E of the crime of robbery, or did not take measures to recover damage, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment is too unfair, even if it appears that the Defendant was committed in light of all the circumstances favorable to the victim G of the larceny in this case.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.