2. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant did not completely recover from damage; and (b) the Defendant did not have any economic condition to recover damage; (c) committed the instant crime on a four-day basis after employed at the convenience store of this case; and (d) the CCTV inside the convenience store was installed; and (c) did not take cash, even if CCTV was installed inside the convenience store.

In light of the fact that a juvenile protective disposition was issued more than ten times by means of fraud, embezzlement, etc. from 2012 to 2016, when considering the following: (a) the amount of damage is relatively minor; (b) there was no record of punishment heavier than the amount of fine; (c) there was no record of punishment heavier than the amount of fine; and (d) there was no record of punishment heavier than the Defendant’s age, and the fact that the Defendant’s home environment is bad, etc., the above punishment was imposed by taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) there was an interview with the law applicable to the crime, such as boarding and leaving a taxi, and intentionally concealing criminal proceeds; (b) there was a record of having received juvenile protective disposition at least ten times by fraud, embezzlement, etc. from 2012 to

In addition to the circumstances considered by the court below, the court below takes into account the fact that the damage has not been restored to the trial.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable as it is alleged by the Defendant, contrary to what is alleged by the Defendant.