Judgment

The circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects the truth in depth, and that most of the damaged goods were returned to the victims, and that the damage was recovered to some extent.

However, the crime of this case was committed habitually by the defendant cutting the stolen text attached to the clothes at the floor of clothes and 5,00 won in total by 11 times in a way that the defendant puts up the clothes in the bags and frequently stolen the clothing, etc. of 5,550,000 won in total. In light of the background and frequency of the crime, methods of the crime, theft amount, etc., the criminal liability of the defendant is very heavy, the defendant did not agree with the victims, the defendant committed the crime of this case several times during the period of the same repeated crime of the same kind, and the risk of recidivism is high, in our criminal procedure law where the trial-oriented principle and direct principle are applied, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing determination of the punishment of this case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and it does not seem reasonable to change the defendant's age in the circumstances that are favorable to all the defendant's body after the trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, July 23, 2015).

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no ground for appeal by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.