The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant on July 23, 2015, taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the fact that each of the instant crimes was committed by robbery or quasi-Robbery; that there was considerable risk of changing due to robbery; that damage was not recovered properly; that Defendant was not agreed with the victims; that Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of execution for 6 months on March 22, 2018, which was in violation of the Act on the Control, etc. of Narcotics, Etc. (mariana) and again again committed a crime during the suspension of execution; that part of the damage was recognized to have been returned to the victim; that part of the damage was deemed to have been returned to the victim; that there was no record of punishment of the same kind of crime prior to the instant case; that there was no special circumstance or change of circumstances that could be considered for sentencing newly in the trial; that there was no special circumstance or circumstance to consider the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and circumstances after the instant crime; and that all of the sentencing factors revealed in the oral proceedings.