2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by intrusion upon the victim’s residence during the new wall hours, and taking property of the victim by force against the victim. In light of the time and place of the crime, method of the crime, etc., the nature of the crime is poor. The Defendant did not agree with the victim even though the foreign victim suffered considerable mental and material damage due to the crime of this case.

The defendant has already been punished several times due to the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Theft, and the crime of this case is about two months after the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

In particular, the crime of this case and the method of committing the crime of this case are similar to the crime of this case where property was invaded upon residence by destroying the door with the tool prepared in advance by the defendant's previous thief and then damaging the structure.

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.; and (b) the scope of the recommended sentence guidelines of the Supreme Court (a) [decision of imprisonment of three years to six years] of the sentencing standards; (b) robbery; general standards; and (c) Type 2 (Special Robbery) / [Scope of Recommendation] basic area; (d) three to six years of imprisonment (general person): Aggravation factors: Aggravation factors: (a) the Defendant acknowledges and reflects the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant did not exercise the direct tangible power, such as assault, in addition to threatening the victim by a deadly weapon in the course of the instant crime, even if the lower court’s sentence is unreasonably heavy.

Therefore, the defendant.