2. The Defendant, even though having committed the larceny, was partially attempted, and the amount of the thief was also minor.

However, the Defendant committed a crime at least two months since he/she was sentenced to punishment due to interference with business affairs, and committed a crime on October 16, 2017, which was arrested as a flagrant offender and released after being investigated, and on the same day, he/she committed a crime. In addition, when he/she was discovered while he/she was stolen from a convenience store on the same day, he/she was able to take a bath and interfere with the business of the convenience store, and did not cause the Defendant to recover damage.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and consequences as shown in the records and pleadings, all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the commission of crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

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