2. The judgment of the court below did not have such extenuating circumstances as the defendant made a confession of all of the crimes of this case and made it against his will, caused large amounts of damage to his life, leading to the crime of this case. Some thefts were seized, and the victim temporarily returned to the victim. However, the crime of this case did not appear to have been committed from the beginning in order to steal money and valuables by intrusion on the commercial building without any person at night or on the new wall, with the intention to commit the crime of this case, such as taking away money and valuables from the beginning up to 13 times during a month after preparing for the crime of this case, and destroying the entrance door, etc. of the commercial building, etc., and intruded them into the crime of this case, and thus, it was very heavy in quality of the crime. The defendant was planned and dangerous to commit the crime of this case, even during the suspension period of the execution of quasi-Robbery, and it was found that the defendant did not reach the age of victims of the crime of this case, and that the defendant did not reach the age of the crime of this case of this case.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.