2. The fact that the judgment of the defendant recognizes and reflects his/her criminal act, that the above victim did not want to be punished by the defendant by paying damages to some victims, and that the damage caused by the crime of property damage appears to have been recovered is favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, by cutting off the money and valuables of the victims who are locked on the street, and by neglecting the victim's mobile phone owned by the victim so as to avoid arresting another victim who gets away after discovering and driving it.

Even though the defendant had been punished for committing a theft of money and valuables against prisoners, he also committed the same crime.

In full view of such circumstances and other factors of sentencing as the Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive of crime, means and consequence of crime, etc. as indicated in the argument of the instant case, and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, since the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is not reasonable.