2. The Defendant appears to have been prevented from committing the instant crime because of the economic difficulties at the time, and it is difficult to view that the amount of individual damages suffered by the victims due to the Defendant’s theft, etc. was excessive. The victim Y of the instant bodily injury did not want to punish the Defendant by withdrawing the complaint, and the Defendant’s mistake was repented and reflected, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

However, there are many records of punishment for juvenile protection and imprisonment with prison labor due to the same crime. The crime of this case committed by the defendant, along with A, theft of the victim G while the defendant kept in custody of the victim G with A, and committed an additional crime, such as purchasing goods using a credit card, etc. located on the wall, and other additional crimes, such as embezzlement of money received by the victim W as a delivery employee of the restaurant operated by the victim W, and embezzlement of or minor negligence of the money received by the victim W, etc., the crime method, circumstance, and nature of the crime are not good, damage suffered by most victims other than some victims is not recovered even recently, and the punishment of the court below is too unreasonable, considering all other factors such as the defendant's age, environment, personality, and conduct, it is difficult to view that the above argument of the defendant is too inappropriate.

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.