The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment and punishment) of the lower court is too unreasonable in light of the following: (i) the Defendant’s misunderstandings and attempts not to repeat a crime; (ii) the Defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of crime; and (iii) the degree of damage to the instant case is not significant.

2. The court below determined the above punishment by taking account of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime and reflects the truth in depth, that the amount of the damage caused by theft and forcibly taken by the defendant is not significant, that the defendant did not have any criminal records of the same kind or suspension of execution, and that the method and contents of the crime caused by robbery of this case are violent and violent, and that the crime is committed against an unspecified person, and that the degree of injury caused by robbery of this case is serious, and that the degree of injury caused by robbery of this case is serious and considerable mental impulse, and that the defendant did not recover from the victims of this case or did not receive a letter of suspicion from the victims, and that the victims want to severely punish the defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the reasons for appeal were already considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and since no new sentencing data was submitted in the trial at the lower court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court. Moreover, considering the grounds for and circumstances of sentencing as stated by the lower court, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, it does not seem that the lower court’s sentencing of the lower court, which sentenced the minimum sentence within the scope of the applicable sentencing, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.