2. The lower court: (a) took into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the instant crime and the fact that the Defendant’s participation in each of the instant crimes is not significant compared to other accomplices in light of the following: (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc.; and (c) the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant was imposed in one year and six months, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the environment, the motive and circumstance of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

In full view of the conditions of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below without considering that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

(1) The Defendant deposited KRW 11,703,00, which is equivalent to the amount of the petroleum of this case in the trial, and the Defendant’s leakage and actively wanted to stand the Defendant’s identity. However, it is practically impossible to accurately calculate the amount of damage in the case of the crime of the crime of the act of the cutting off oil of gross oil pipelines. In light of the characteristics of the crime of the crime of the cutting off oil of oil pipelines, where the crime of the oil of this case was committed without any suspicion that the amount of damage can be punished for a significant amount of money if successful, the reason for sentencing submitted to the Defendant in the trial does not reach the extent of changing the punishment determined by the lower court). Accordingly, the lower court