2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and recognized his mistake, and that there is no record of punishment for the same crime.

However, most of the damages have not been recovered until 3 years and 8 months have passed from the due date, and the written agreement of the victim was submitted in the trial. However, considering that the property crime in this case was the property crime and the civil conciliation was conducted between the defendant and the victim in the original trial, it is difficult to view that the written agreement has a significant value in determining the punishment. The original judgment also takes into account the circumstances that constituted civil conciliation in the original judgment, such as the explanation of sentencing in the sentencing of the lower court, sufficiently taking into account the relationship with the victim, such as the fact that the situation in which the civil conciliation was formed is not paid by the defendant, but was merely a fact that the defendant was exempted from the obligation under each subparagraph of the victim, and it was merely a fact that the defendant was exempted from the obligation. In full view of all the other factors in the records of this case and the changed theories, the original judgment’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's improper argument in sentencing is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.