Judgment

The normal conditions favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the confession of the crime of this case by the defendant, against the mistake, etc.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to disrupt the order of electronic financial transactions by assaulting female employees at the main point, lending the passbook and physical card under the name of the defendant to the name in order to maintain the order of electronic financial transactions. In light of the contents of the crime, the liability is heavy, the defendant does not make any effort to recover the damage to the victim; the above account borrowed by the defendant actually used for the second crime and additional criminal damage occurred; the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime several times with several records of punishment; the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime; in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and direct principle, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first trial where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first trial and the sentencing of the first trial does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the defendant's appeal is ex officio, and the summary of evidence of the judgment of the court below is one of the column.