excessive one percent (No. 1) seized shall be confiscated.

The defendant, in order to get a director in a residential house, has not been able to get a director's expenses, and the defendant entered a convenience store in order to prepare it, and raised money to the employees.

On January 25, 2016, the Defendant, at around 01:10, at the D convenience store located in Sinsan-si, around 01:10, displayed the transition (blade length: 12cc) that is a deadly weapon previously possessed by the victim E (at around 23 years of age) who is an employee, and made it difficult for the Defendant to resist by opening crying it, and, at the same time, took a 130,000 won in cash managed by the injured party who was in his/her bank at a place for calculating the amount of money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of seizure records and statutes concerning the list of seizure;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 334 (2) and (1) and 333 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the following sentencing shall be considered in consideration of the conditions favorable to the attention) of the mitigated amount;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months to fifteen years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the types of decisions] the general standards for strengths and punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] shall be three to six years (the basic area) (the person who is in general in sentencing]. The mitigated factors of the sentencing criteria: Serious reflectness.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and the defendant took the cash by threatening employees of convenience stores at night. In light of the time, method, place of crime, etc., the responsibility for the crime is heavy and the strict punishment is needed as much as the defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party.

However, considering the fact that the defendant did not have any economic difficulty, the defendant committed the crime in this case, only a minor career subject to a fine once, and the fact that the defendant commits a mistake, the defendant's age, sexual conduct, and all other factors of sentencing as shown in the argument in this case shall be determined by taking into account the punishment as ordered.