The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the robbery crime against the victim U is not based on the habition of robbery. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of habitual robbery under Article 5-4(3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established when a person who has a habitive wall of robbery committed robbery again (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1995, Dec. 12, 1989). The following circumstances duly admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the defendant committed the crime of robbery and robbery on seven occasions in 201 and 2 months in 2012 before committing robbery against the victim U.S., and ② The crime of robbery and robbery by the defendant was committed by the robbery and robbery on seven occasions in 2012. In light of the following circumstances, the defendant’s assertion that the robbery against the victim was identical to the robbery by the defendant in light of the robbery against the victim.

B. It is recognized that the defendant's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing has divided his mistake into primary offenders, and that the defendant agreed with some victims and deposited some money for some victims, etc.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant at night over 12 times during a period of one year and eight months, and the crime of this case was committed by force against the victims of female who are mixed with money and valuables or by neglecting to commit an attempted crime, and the nature of the crime is not very good. The amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is the maximum amount, and the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, and crime is committed.