The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The seized Hagueton 1 (No. 50), proton.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s imprisonment with prison labor (four years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The robbery and special larceny of this case committed the robbery of this case by intrusion upon another person's residence and taking property by force or theft. In particular, the defendant committed the robbery of this case by threatening the victim's hand with a tape prepared in advance after threatening the victim D, and suppressing resistance by suppressing the above victim's hand, and the risk of the act itself is very heavy and bad.

In advance, the Defendant committed the crime by painting the subject of the crime and preparing for the tools of the crime, while selling the stolen or stolen stolen stolen articles to the transaction of valuable stolen articles, pawned Art, etc.

The degree of damage suffered by victims is not insignificant in the amount exceeding 100 million won in total of the values of the strong and stolen property.

However, the defendant did not recover all the victims' damages due to each of the above crimes, and did not receive a letter of suspicion from the victim F.

On the other hand, despite the fact that the Defendant had had been punished once due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the Defendant again committed a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act of the same kind, and the Defendant’s physical card transferred was actually used for the scaming crime.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant acknowledges all of his criminal acts and reflects on it, that the defendant does not have any criminal record other than a fine for one time, that the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with C, D and C, the victim of robbery when the defendant was in the trial, and that all money deposited in the deposit account in the name of the defendant in relation to the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act was returned to the Bosing victim.

In addition to these circumstances, the family relationship of the defendant;