2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the amount of damage is not significant, the Defendant has repeatedly stolen objects in a short period, and the Defendant has the same history as twice, and in particular, constitutes a repeated offense.

Although the defendant reached an agreement with some victims for the first time, in light of the defendant's repeated theft of another's goods, it cannot be viewed as a new normal relationship or change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below.

In addition, when comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, motive and background, and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party, the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. 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.