2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, there are favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant appears to have been led to the confession of the instant crime in a net order; (b) the cellular phone that is a damaged product was returned to the victim; (c) the victim was agreed with the principal of convenience store for the victim E; and (d) the deposit of KRW 300,000 for the victim E; and (c) the

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by intrusioning on the convenience store at the night, threatening an employee’s age victim with a deadly weapon to suppress an resistance, and takes cash, etc., and the method of the crime is dangerous and the nature of the crime is grave. The statutory punishment for the special robbery of this case is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than five years. The court below sentenced two years and six months to the maximum extent of recommended punishment (two years to six years), which is set forth in the sentencing guidelines (two years to fifteen years) after the Defendant selected a limited imprisonment, and reduced the amount of imprisonment, and sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term. In full view of various kinds of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., even if it is considered that the sentence of the court below is too unfair, considering the changed situation that partially favorable to the Defendant, such as the above agreement and deposit, as seen earlier at the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal disputing unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.