The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) that the court below sentenced against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant's confession of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and the fact that there are circumstances to consider the family environment and growth background of the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, since the defendant planned by using female co-offenders who are minors to induce the victim to gather and withdraw money and valuables, the nature of the crime is not very good, the crime of this case was committed during the suspended execution period even though he was placed prior to the suspended execution for the same kind of crime, the damage was not recovered, the victim was wanting to punish the defendant, and the fact that the defendant has the record of receiving multiple juvenile protective disposition is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances leading to the instant crime, including the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, since it is apparent that the "The Punishment, etc. of Violences" in Part 3, Part 17 and Part 18 of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014), each correction ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is made].