2. Determination

A. According to the records, the lower court determined the punishment by taking account of various sentencing factors, such as the poor quality of the crime, the fact that the damage was not recovered, the fact that there was not only the history of punishment for the same kind of crime but also the fact that the same kind of crime was committed during the period of repeated crime, the fact that the mistake was divided and reflected, the degree of damage is relatively minor, health conditions, etc., and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court Decision.

B. Although there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial court, and considering the various reasons revealed in the oral proceedings, the lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

C. Therefore, the argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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

(However, the judgment of the court below is clearly erroneous in the statement No. 3, Paragraph 1, because it is clear that the "in the event of" is a clerical error in the statement, it shall be corrected ex officio under Article 25