The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) is too unreasonable considering the following: (i) the Defendant’s failure to repeat the crime in response to the mistake; (ii) the instant crime was committed contingent; and (iii) the victims do not want the Defendant’s punishment.

2. The lower court, while taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s confession of the crime and reflects his mistake, and the victims’ failure to want punishment against the Defendant by mutual consent with the victims, determined the above punishment by taking account of the following: (a) the inferior nature of the crime in light of the method and content of the crime in this case; (b) the Defendant was under the influence of under the influence of alcohol, and (c) the Defendant had the record of being subject to the suspension of execution by taking advantage of the force of robbery, and (d) there was a high possibility of criticism against the crime in this case.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal have already been considered in the course of sentencing, and since new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial at the trial of the lower court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court. Moreover, even when considering the grounds for sentencing as stated by the lower court, the lower court’s sentencing, which sentenced the lowest sentence within the scope of the applicable sentencing range, is too unreasonable and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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