2. There are extenuating circumstances in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendants led to confession and reflect on each of the instant crimes, the Defendants’ partial theft crime committed was committed in attempted attempts, Defendant B took part in the commission of theft crime by Defendant A’s proposal, and the Defendants have grown in the poor family environment.

However, even though the Defendants had been subject to punishment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, they repeatedly committed the crime of larceny during the repeated period. In particular, in light of the fact that Defendant A was released from the same prison on July 8, 2013 and began to commit the crime of larceny from July 10, 2013, which was after the framework, and that the victims of the Defendants’ theft are many victims and the degree of damage is not minor, punishment corresponding to the relevant crime is inevitable.

Furthermore, the lower court appears to have determined punishment by fully taking account of all the circumstances as seen earlier, and all of the Defendant A is the victim V, 11 of the crime No. 4, the victim AC, 41 of the crime No. 2, and 44 of the crime No. 2, and the victim BB of the crime No. 41 of the crime No. 49 among the six victims of the theft crime committed more than 52 times in the list of crimes as indicated in the lower judgment.

In this case, even though Defendant A submitted an application for no punishment against the above victims, it is difficult to say that there is a change of circumstances that could vary from the original judgment by the submission of the above written application for no punishment against some victims, even though the above victims did not recover from actual damage. Three years of imprisonment with labor for Defendant B, which the lower court sentenced to the statutory punishment against Defendant B, is the maximum punishment mitigated by repeating repeated crimes.