2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant, while recognizing the instant crime, is against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant’s attempted larceny was committed; (c) the Defendant’s attempted larceny was committed; and (d) the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant who attempted to steals money and valuables by intrusion upon the victim’s residence. The crime of larceny is likely to harm the peace of residence and develop into serious crimes, such as robbery and quasi-Robbery, etc. in the course of the crime, and the quality of the crime is not considerably good. The Defendant has been punished several times due to the larceny. In particular, on June 1, 2017, the Suwon District Court sentenced the Defendant for one year and two months from the punishment due to habitual larceny, etc., and was sentenced on March 4, 2018 at the same time on March 1, 2018, and was committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the fact that the execution of the punishment was completed and even during the repeated period, and thus, there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the court below and the sentence. Considering the following circumstances, the court below’s reasonable sentencing is unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.