The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant recognized the crime of this case, and was in depth divided and reflected in his mistake.

The total amount of damage caused by theft and fraud reaches 3.5 million won, and the degree of violence against quasi-Robbery victims is also hot.

Quasi-Robbery victims did not want to be punished by the defendant, and the defendant made efforts to recover damage by repaying or depositing the amount of damage to some larceny victims.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant has already been punished several times due to the theft crime, and the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and six months for special robbery, etc. and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 31, 2013.

Nevertheless, during the period of probation, a criminal act of theft of another person's personal effects or cash of the credit cooperative, which was neglected management, has been repeated over 13 times, and in particular, the criminal act of assaulting female victims was committed in order to escape arrest on one occasion.

There is still no complete measures to recover damage against victims.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the defendant's age, family relation, criminal record, personality and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the court below's maximum sentence imposed by the defendant within the scope of discretionary mitigation is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act for lack of reason.