2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court where there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court considered the following factors: (a) under the unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant, the Defendant is a planned and planned crime; (b) the stolen cash exceeds KRW 236.65,00; (c) the Defendant in charge of security duties at the time of cash withdrawal is a theft of cash stored in the cash withdrawal period using his/her position; (d) the nature and circumstances of the offense are very significant; (e) the Defendant’s act of cutting the cash stored in the cash withdrawal period; (e) the Defendant’s act of withdrawing the cash victim from the Defendant’s crime; and (e) the security guard company that employs the Defendant as well as the Defendant’s employee suffers additional damage that his/her new delivery brings out of the favorable circumstances and actual damage; and (e) the Defendant’s environmental punishment is against the Defendant’s age 1.

As above, the sentencing of the court below appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below as it is. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the court below’s sentencing is too heavy or unreasonable because it is too low.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.