A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

around 16:50 on August 20, 2015, the Defendant entered the D convenience store located in Seo-gu in Gwangju, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and had been working there at the same time, and the Defendant stated that “I would like to say, “I would like to have much money than I would like to have paid to I would like to pay I would? I would like to say that I would like to say, “I would like to have money more than I would like to have? I would like to say, I would like to say, “I would like to write I would like to pay I would like to pay I would like to I would like to pay I would like money.” On the other hand, I would like to say that I would like to say, “I would like to write I would like to pay I would like to I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to have been

Accordingly, the defendant carried a deadly weapon and received a strong withdrawal of the victim's property, and the defendant attempted to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written waiver of ownership, a protocol of seizure of the police and a list;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 342, 334 (2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act (the point of attempted special robbery and the choice of limited imprisonment);

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of attempted crimes;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act asserted that the defendant committed the crime of this case under the influence of alcohol. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, even if the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, it cannot be seen that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above argument is not sufficient.