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

On July 8, 2018, the Defendant: (a) demanded the Victim F (25 cm) who was smoking on the street in the front of the “E Ba” as “E Dog-si, Mag-si; (b) however, the Defendant: (c) prevented the victim from resisting against the Plaintiff; (d) prevented the victim from resisting against the Plaintiff; (c) by threatening the victim to “absing tobacco,” and by threatening the victim’s excessive amount of money ( approximately 23 cm in total length, approximately 13 cm in length; and (d) 13 cm in length; and (e) received a single cigarette amount from the victim, which is the market price.

Accordingly, the defendant took the property of others by carrying a deadly weapon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

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. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The consideration of favorable circumstances among the grounds for sentencing);

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

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for a period of two years and six months to fifteen years;

2. Two types (special robbery) (special robbery) of the criteria for the application of the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the non-exclusive penalty (the scope of the recommended punishment] from June to four years (the area of mitigated punishment).

3. The Defendant sentenced the sentence to a new wall time zone, and took the excessive amount of tobacco from the victim’s item of the new wall to force the victim to pay one cigarette from the victim.

The defendant was not in possession of excessive amount at the time, but in order to threaten other 20 young people who have been punished for a dispute with the defendant, the defendant was in possession of excessive amount.

The Defendant committed the instant crime, even before committing the instant crime, even though he was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor or three years of suspended sentence for two years, again committed the instant crime.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.

The value of property taken by the defendant shall be the value of property.