A. The sentence of the lower court (nine years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court deemed that the Defendant recognized the remainder of the crimes except for special larceny and divided his/her mistake, the degree of property damage caused by the crime is relatively minor, and the victim of special larceny does not want to be punished by the Defendant as favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant knew with B that he would be able to take off a water-free beverage for elderly people who are vulnerable to the crime together with B, and prepared robbery or committed robbery in the Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and Chungcheongnam-gun, etc. The victim of robbery in this case committed considerable risk to health, such as receiving hospital treatment, etc. even after recovery of awareness, and thus, the crime is not highly good. Nevertheless, there is no damage recovery measures against victims, and the defendant was not taken from the victims except for special larceny, and there was a history of punishment several times due to theft and fraud. In particular, even though the defendant was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment due to the crime of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Robbery), fraud, etc. of the same several laws that were committed prior to each of the crimes in this case, the defendant committed the robbery in the month of approximately seven years after release, and the defendant committed robbery, including robbery, robbery, robbery, and robbery, and robbery.