2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, who stolen bicycles and urbane, driven an urbane which was stolen without a driver’s license, carried out crypting alcohol, food, etc., and assaulted another person without a driver’s license, and, in light of the method and content of the relevant crime, the nature of the crime is very bad.

There is also a high possibility of criticism in that the defendant commits the above crimes during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of larceny and unlicensed driving.

However, the defendant's mistake is recognized and against the defendant, and the defendant has an opportunity to reflect while living in prison for about two months in this case, and the degree of damage caused by each of the crimes in this case cannot be seen as severe, the victim B returned all the damaged articles to the victim of larceny, and the victim B did not want punishment against the defendant, and the crime of fraud is also agreed with the victim of the crime in this case, and the crime of fraud is concurrent crimes such as violation of Road Traffic Act (accident after the accident) at the time of judgment in September 2017, and it is necessary to consider equality with the case at the same time in this case after the judgment after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.