2. The fact that the defendant recognized the crime and reflected the crime, and that the damage of larceny was recovered, etc. are favorable to the sentencing.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant on a discount basis, and was arrested and detained and being investigated, and the nature of the crime is not good, and there is no special reason to change the sentence of the lower court at a disadvantage and in depth, such as the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times due to assault, obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., and that there is no special reason to change the sentence of the lower court, and considering various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench (Provided, That since it is evident that the “(within the scope calculated by adding up the maximum amount of the above two crimes)” was omitted in the column of concurrent crimes among the application of Article 3 of the judgment below No. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.