2. In light of the favorable circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant reflects on the crime, the degree of damage is not relatively heavy, the thief commits attempted, the victim who was destroyed at the investigation stage and the victim did not want the punishment against the Defendant, and the victim of the thief did not want the punishment against the Defendant, the lower court determined the sentence to be sentenced to the lower sentence under the law, which has been sentenced to attempted mitigation and discretionary mitigation, by taking into account all the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant appear to be the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account when determining the Defendant’s punishment. The lower court’s punishment is reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there are no circumstances suggesting that the said sentencing conditions have been changed in the appellate court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted, since the court below's punishment is too heavy.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.