2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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, supra). A favorable circumstance is that recognition of and reflects on a crime, the amount of damage is a small amount, the damaged goods were returned to the victim, and the efforts to treat the wall through psychological counseling, etc. is deemed to have been made.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed in the new store by means of the new method that the person reported and the damaged items were stolen by the new method, and the nature of the crime is not good, and there was a record of punishment several times as well as a prison punishment due to the same crime, and in particular, the risk of repeating the crime during the period of repeated crime of the same kind (the crime was committed only 10 days after release) is very high.

The court below determined a punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the court below because new sentencing data have not been submitted in the court below.

In addition, the lower court’s punishment is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem to be excessively heavy beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, in light of the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.