The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the sentence of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

According to the records, the victim I stated in the police that at the time when the defendant committed the robbery and robbery of this case, the victim I confirmed that the victim was in the house of female children's mixed with the victim at the time of the crime of robbery and robbery and that the door was not corrected (Evidence No. 6030 of the evidence No. 6030 of the year 2013) and that the defendant got into the house by mistake and contingently entering the house at the time of the crime of this case, it is difficult to believe that the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion that the defendant conspired with the victim is difficult to believe that the crime was committed, such as theft and intrusion, theft of the vehicle, etc., and theft of the vehicle. In particular, in the case of robbery, it appears that the victim and his family members were under 10 years of age, and that the defendant did not endeavor to compensate for the damage caused by the robbery. Nevertheless, the defendant did not endeavor to do so.

Considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime, means and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as the recommended sentences prescribed by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, even if considering the circumstances in which the Defendant satise (in particular, the Defendant agreed with the victim L of thief on February 1, 2013 when the Defendant was at the trial, and the Defendant was unable to lead a normal workplace life due to suffering from dysatitis for a long period of medical treatment, and reached the crime of this case) the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable compared to the Defendant’s responsibility.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

2.2