2. The lower court seems to have sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment, considering all the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, including (1) the Defendant’s acknowledgement of all crimes and the return of stolen goods to the victim, and (2) the Defendant has been subject to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime four times, and (3) the Defendant committed a crime without being aware of the fact that he/she committed a crime while being sentenced to the suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a crime under the same law as this case.

When comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, career, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing guidelines in the trial, the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, and the judgment of the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

there is a special change in circumstances that can be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions at the court below.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the sentence of the court below cannot be considered to be proper and too unreasonable.

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 (Article 25 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since it is obvious that the "police statement report against D" in the 2th h 8 parallel of the judgment below is a clerical error in the "police statement report against C", it is corrected as ex officio dismissal in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.