The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

from the defendant.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the sentence of imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In that the defendant, after committing the crime of robbery A with Co-defendant A of the lower judgment, again prepared for robbery for the purpose of committing robbery and went to make preparations for robbery, the nature of the crime is very poor, and in addition, he interferes with his performance of duties by committing an act, such as leaving Oral hemoths, to J, which is a public duty personnel, by taking advantage of 15 million won from the victim M, by embezzlement of KRW 18.6 million, which he has been engaged in business for the victim R, and the fact that the defendant has been punished several times due to theft, fraud, fraud, etc., shall be considered as the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant.

However, all of the crimes of this case were committed by the Defendant, and the Defendant appeared to reflect the mistake. In the case of the crime of special robbery, the F expressed the intent that the Defendant would not want the punishment of the Defendant by giving KRW 300,000 to the victim F, who is the victim of the crime of fraud and embezzlement, and the Defendant expressed his intention that the Defendant would not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with M and R, who is the victim of the crime of fraud and embezzlement of this case. The fact that the Defendant deposited one million won to J as the cause of damage recovery is considered as favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background leading up to the defendant to the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., various conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, and the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee applicable to this case (the imprisonment between June and February 10, 200), etc., the above sentence sentenced by the court below is deemed to have been too unfair as it changes the sentencing conditions in the trial, as seen earlier.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant is reasonable, and it is in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.