2. Taking into account the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime and reflects the mistake, and that the sum of the amount of damage is not significant, the nature of the crime of this case, which stolen the mobile phone of the victims set up in the brying area, is not good, and there are several records of criminal punishment against the defendant for the same crime, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and three months on November 19, 2013 with the same kind of larceny, etc. on which one year and three months have not yet been aware of the fact that the execution of the punishment was completed, and the victim was not sufficiently recovered, and the victims' damage has not been recovered, and other various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment of the court below is too unreasonable.

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 appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. However, the Defendant’s appeal on the 5th page of the 2nd sentence of the judgment below was stolen.

“The 7 mobilephones were stolen.”

Since it is apparent that it is a clerical error in “,” the ex officio correction is made in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.