2. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime under consideration of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, and circumstances, etc., taking into account the following factors: (b) the Defendant’s damage to another’s property and public property; (c) tried to destroy a mobile phone agency building; (d) destroyed another person on several occasions; (d) stolen objects displayed at convenience stores; (e) stolen objects several times; and (e) was subject to suspension of indictment on several occasions in 2013; and (e) committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime after being discharged; and (e) even if the Defendant had been punished several times due to the commission of theft, damage to property, and fraud, the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime after being discharged; and (e) the mental illness, such as the physical disorder, which the Defendant suffers, appears to have partly influenced the instant crime, and (e) was determined to be sentenced to punishment against the Defendant.

In full view of the factors and sentencing criteria of the sentencing expressed in the process of examining the sentencing of the court below, the sentencing of the court below is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can be deemed to be unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

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