2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the defendant can be punished for the suspension of execution of the same crime and the records of juvenile protective disposition; (b) the crime of this case is habitually committed in light of the nature of the crime and the criminal status; (c) the defendant does not take any practical measures to recover damage up to the trial; (d) the defendant does not reach an agreement with the victims; and (e) the court below appears to have determined the punishment by considering all favorable circumstances for the defendant; and (e) there are no other circumstances to mitigate the punishment by considering the sentencing newly favorable to the defendant after the judgment of the court below; and (e) other conditions of various sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines [general fraud (type 1 (less than 100 million won), basic area; (e) six or one year to six months of imprisonment]; (g) imprisonment with prison labor; (e) imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny; (g) imprisonment with prison labor; and (v) imprisonment with prison labor for a minimum of two to four years];

[The judgment of the court below seems to have judged the crime of larceny of habitual repeated crimes, which is the second category of habitual repeated larceny in the sentencing guidelines, among the crimes of larceny of habitual repeated crimes. However, the above second category is applied to cases falling under Article 5-4 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is jointly committed by not less than five persons. Since Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is applied to the above crimes against the defendant, the judgment of the