2. The Defendant, prior to the instant crime, did not have been punished, and there are circumstances, such as that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime was not high.

However, the crime of this case was committed by entering a convenience store, carrying a lethal weapon at night, and taking money by threatening employees in the place of the dangerous weapon, and the contents of the crime were significant, and did not recover from damage caused by the crime.

Although the Defendant committed the instant crime with no minimum cost of living, etc., in light of the fact that the Defendant was a healthy young people under the age of 28 at the time of the instant crime and could sufficiently afford money to the degree of living cost through normal occupational activities, as alleged, the motive for the instant crime is not an extenuating circumstance, and it is difficult to deem that the instant crime was a contingent crime in that it was committed in advance by preparing excessive amount to be used for the instant crime, and committing the instant crime by preparing for it.

Considering such various circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, including the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s punishment is determined as appropriate punishment corresponding to its liability, and it cannot be deemed that the punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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.