The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

one seized net value (No. 19).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (six years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant was convicted of a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.) against a specific violent criminal, and for whom three years have not passed since the completion of the execution of the sentence, and again committed the instant crime as well as for seven months after the completion of the execution of the sentence by being convicted of a special larceny. The Defendant again committed the instant crime by being convicted of a special larceny, and the Defendant was guilty of having committed a serious possibility of criticism against the Defendant in light of the circumstances, contents, etc. of the instant crime, including the fact that, in the process, it appears that the Defendant might have caused the victim C to have suffered a considerable shock and fear, and the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims.

In addition, in the case of a special robbery, not only the maximum term of a punishment but also two times the short term is increased in accordance with Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Cggravated Crimes, so it is inevitable to sentence the defendant to a long term imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years even if the amount of imprisonment is reduced after choosing

B. However, according to the records, the following facts and circumstances are recognized:

① A part of the damage caused by a special robbery was restored to Victim C, and the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and divided them in depth.

② The Defendant has set up a car in the vicinity of the place where a special robbery was committed in the name of his wife and used it for the escape. As a result, the Defendant was easily identified as the Defendant and thereafter arrested him (5,56 pages of the investigation records of Cheongju District Court Decision 2018 Gocheon-gu 2018 High Court Decision 201, Goju District Court Decision 55,56 pages), the fact that a special robbery was committed in the morning, and other circumstances and thereafter.