The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The defendant committed the instant crime due to economic lack after leaving his father and conflict with his father, but his father and conflict were resolved, and considering the fact that he agreed with the victim, the court below's punishment (one year of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. There are various favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant, due to his father’s conflict, led to the instant crime at his own discretion, agreed with the victim, the Defendant appears to have recognized all the crimes, the light of reflectability, and the Defendant was living before the instant crime after being released from around August 2007.

However, since the contents of the crime of this case were prepared closely in advance to take property from taxi officers and inflict bodily injury on them, the nature of the crime is bad, it is inevitable to punish them corresponding to the suspension of execution and punishment due to similar crimes.

Furthermore, in light of the overall conditions on sentencing, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable, even though there are no circumstances different in the appellate court, and the lower court’s punishment is the lowest of the recommended sentencing range (one year to seven years of imprisonment) according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.