The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (two years and six months) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant does not commit a second offense while recognizing the crime and reflecting the wrongness.

In the court below, the defendant did not have much profits or amounts of property acquired by deception and forcibly, and the victim expressed his/her intention that he/she does not want to be punished against the defendant by agreement with the victim of special robbery.

It also shows the defendant's age as well as some of the circumstances that can be considered in the growth environment of the defendant.

However, the Defendant had been punished several times due to the same crime (a sentence due to robbery, etc., and a three-time fine due to fraud) and committed the instant crime at the same time.

The crime of special robbery of this case was planned to commit the crime, such as preparing excessive job offers for the defendant in advance, and the victim's opportunity to enter the scene of the crime was higher than peeped to force the victim to take cash from the damaged party by threatening the victim's neck, such as booming the excessive amount of opportunity to commit the crime, and thus, the criminal liability is heavy in light of the planning of the crime

The crime of fraud also by deceiving the victim and receiving the alcohol, speech, etc. without paying the price, and the liability for the crime is not easy in light of the motive, circumstance, means and methods of the crime.

In addition to these circumstances, it is reasonable to respect all the sentencing conditions and the sentence imposed by the lower court on the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, within the scope of the sentencing to which the amount of the punishment was mitigated (two years to twenty years from imprisonment); there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial; compared to the first trial, there is no change in the sentencing conditions; and if the first trial sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).