2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, including the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime, jointly with the crew, that the Defendant was stolen of the victim’s navigation gear at sea; (b) the Defendant did not make any effort to recover the victims’ damage; and (c) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime at latest; and (d) the Defendant did not have any criminal history more than that of the same criminal record or suspended execution.

In addition to the above-mentioned circumstances, the court below takes into account the fact that the victim's damage has not been recovered until the court of first instance.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

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.