Therefore, since the above dismissal part of the judgment of the court below against which the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal is finalized, it is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

3. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the grounds for appeal, has the unique area of the first instance judgment, and where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant offenses, recognizing all of the instant offenses; and (b) the Defendant appears to have returned all the thiefs to the victim; and (c) the fact that all the thiefs of the instant thief

On the other hand, without any special reason, the Defendant: (a) taken a trial fee to D; (b) threatened the victim F and G with excessive danger to be prevented from receiving it from the victim E; (c) threatened the victim F and G with excessive balance; and (d) threatened the victims to avoid this; (b) stolen the victim’s F property from the victim’s locked place.

The place of the instant crime is the head of the field education office, and it seems that there were students and female guardians at the present site. The background leading up to the instant crime, method and contents of the instant crime.