The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant expressed his intention of self-regulation in the vicinity of the scene without escape even though he could escape to another place immediately after committing the crime of robbery, and the lower court did not consider this as a reason for mitigation of punishment, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mitigation of self-denunciation

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) is too unlimited and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant voluntarily surrendered.

Even if the court voluntarily surrenders the self-denunciation, it is merely a mere fact that the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment, and the court below did not reduce the self-denunciation.

or failure to render a judgment on the allegation to reduce self-denunciation;

Therefore, it cannot be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011). In this case, there is no error of law that the court below did not consider the number of the defendant who was merely the reason for voluntary mitigation of punishment as the reason for voluntary mitigation of punishment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal

(B) Examining this part of the judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, it is reasonable for the court below to have judged that the defendant did not voluntarily surrenders for the reasons stated in its judgment, and therefore, the above argument of the defendant is without merit in this regard.

The defendant's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing all of the crimes in this case recognized the crime in this case and reflects his mistake in depth, there is no record of punishment for the same crime, there is only two previous criminal records of fines, and there was an agreement with the victim D of robbery, and the extent of damage is not significant is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was relatively old for the victims who are female victims, and money and valuables have been pressed by means of inducing them to face their own face.