2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are acknowledged, such as the fact that the defendant, who led to the confession of the crime of this case, is suffering from the stimulative disorder, and the fact that the defendant did not reach the physical and mental weakness state due to these symptoms, but seems to have contributed to the crime of this case, and the victim C expressed at the investigative agency that the defendant does not want criminal punishment against the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed while the defendant stealss the property of the other person by impairing the building of the same person, uses another person's credit card as his/her own act, and steals the property of the victims. In light of the contents of the crime, the crime of this case is heavy, the defendant does not make any specific effort to recover victims' damage, the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he/she had been punished several times since he/she had been punished for the same kind of crime, and in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and direct attention, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court, and the first sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances of the above recognized defendant do not seem to fall under the circumstances of change in circumstances that can change the defendant's punishment in favor of the court below, and thus, it does not seem to fall under the circumstances of the court below's oral proceedings.

3. Conclusion.