The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. It is true that there are circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances, such as: (a) the Defendant appears to have been prevented from committing the instant crime in order to establish a flood control by driving away away from his living conditions; (b) the Defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence due to attempted robbery in the past 1996, which was committed by juveniles, and there is no history of punishment for the same crime until now; and (c) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and against himself.

However, this case was a very planned crime, such as preparing the criminal tools in advance, and the defendant's punishment for a considerable period of time is inevitable, since the crime was not compensated even though the victim seems to have suffered a very significant mental impulse, in light of the content of the crime committed by taking advantage of the convenience store for the married female, and the nature of the crime is very poor, and it is inevitable to sentence the defendant to a punishment for a considerable period of time.

In addition, when comprehensively considering all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant, the sentence of the court below is not considered to be too inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

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.