2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, there are also circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant committed all the instant crimes, showing the appearance of realizing and reflecting his mistake; (b) agreed with the victim of a special robbery; (c) the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant; (d) the amount of damage caused by robbery was temporarily returned to the victim; and (e) the Defendant suffered from disability, such as the mental retardation, etc.

However, each of the crimes of this case committed robbery at the convenience store in the middle of the month when the defendant committed robbery by threatening female victims at a discount line with a deadly weapon. The crime of this case committed robbery at the convenience store in the middle of the month. In light of the circumstances and methods of the crime, and the frequency of the crime. The statutory punishment of the special robbery of this case is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than five years. The court below selected a limited term of imprisonment and selected concurrent crimes and conducted a limited term of imprisonment and conducted a limited term of imprisonment for a limited term of at least two years and six years (two years to six years). The court below found that the court below sentenced the maximum punishment of the defendant within the scope of the punishment set in the sentencing guidelines (two years to six years) by considering the following factors: the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relation, and circumstances after the crime, and found that the punishment of this case is unfair within the scope of the punishment of the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal disputing unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.