2. The judgment of the defendant shows the attitude that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected, and the fact that CCTVs that the defendant stolen were returned to the victim is favorable to the defendant.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of crime and consequence, etc., as well as all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and theories of change, it cannot be deemed unfair since the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, considering the following as a whole: (a) the Defendant had the history of eight or more times of punishment due to the crime of the same type, such as obstruction of duties, damage of property, assault, and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.); (b) the CCTV body was stolen to destroy evidence after the crime of the instant case was committed; (c) the Defendant damaged the body of CCTV of the public prosecutor’s office despite being investigated by the crime of the instant case; and (d) the Defendant did not have any effort to recover damage to the victim after the crime of the instant case.

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.