Therefore, notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below's request for probation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the part of the judgment below's case belongs to the scope of the judgment of this court

2. The sentence imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination is favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, the defendant's punishment power was not present in the reserve forces training, and the type of the crime of special larceny and quasi-special robbery of this case differs from that of the crime of this case, the victim of the special larceny of this case did not want to be punished against the defendant, the defendant had undergone the growth process, and the defendant's difficulty in living due to the defendant's family environment has been partly caused for the crimes of this case.

However, there is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case even during the suspension of execution, the crime of special larceny and quasi-special robbery of this case in collaboration with co-defendants of the court below, theft of property, use of violence for the purpose of evading arrest in the process, and the nature of such crime is poor, and the defendant was not able to receive suspicion from the victims of the crime of quasi-special robbery of this case.

In addition, the court below selected a limited term of punishment among the statutory penalty for the crime of quasi-special robbery of this case, and then adopted a sentence through discretionary mitigation.