2. The judgment of the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, and the defendant has no record of being punished for the same crime as the crimes of this case, etc. are favorable circumstances.

However, the crime of robbery in this case was committed by the defendant against the owner of the gas station that had previously been employed by his employee, and the nature of the crime was very poor, and the defendant examined the gas station, the place of the crime, and its surroundings in advance before the crime was committed for the robbery, and carried dangerous things in the course of the crime, and planned to commit the crime closely, such as cutting the burial wall and using the mast and her mother, and did not agree with the victims and did not recover from the damage.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (a period of three years and six months or more), the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

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