The punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment is rendered, there is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing, the circumstances favorable to the Defendant (the fact that the Defendant recognized his/her own responsibility for each of the crimes of this case, the Defendant agreed with the victim), the unfavorable circumstances (the fact that the Defendant does not seem to have shown good mind that the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the suspended execution period due to larceny, the fact that the Defendant was punished before the site of his/her management, and that there is a high possibility of criticism by means of a method similar to those that he/she was punished before the site of his/her management, and that the Defendant has been punished more than 30 times, including fraud and larceny), and other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, how the Defendant committed each of the crimes, method of committing the crimes, and the circumstances after the criminal investigation agency, etc., the sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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