2. In full view of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the fact that the instant thief was to be imposed in consideration of equity with the case at the same time in relation to the concurrent crimes between the final and conclusive judgment of the lower court and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, but the total amount of damage to the instant thief crime is not significant; the victim D of the instant thief crime and E wanting to be punished by the Defendant; and other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant thief; and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court; and there are no materials newly discovered in the course of the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the summary of the evidence in the judgment of the court below is to be corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is apparent that the Daejeon High Court Decision 2015No51, and the Integrated Case Search and Inspection Report was omitted.

.