2. The lower court determined the above punishment by taking account of the circumstances unfavorable to sentencing, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime and reflects the fact that the damaged goods were recovered, and there was no criminal conviction heavier than the fine, and the Defendant repeats the crime of theft by entering an apartment warehouse, etc. after 2013, and the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the victim, etc.

Compared with the evidence of various sentencing conditions, such as the sentencing reasons and the defendant's age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., which the court below rendered, in addition, considering the fact that the court below, in the application of the sentencing guidelines, imposed the punishment within the scope of recommended sentences for "thieth of neglect, etc." (type 1 / from April to August) more light, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

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