2. As to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, since the first instance court’s inherent area exists in the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of all the circumstances (i.e., the fact that the lower court’s sentence was imposed on the Defendant by taking account of sentencing (i.e., the fact that a large number of larceny criminal records exist, the fact that a number of larceny criminal offenses were repeated during the period of repeated offense due to larceny, the fact that the amount of damage was not significant, and the fact that the damaged goods were returned) and all of the sentencing conditions (such as all of the sentencing factors (e.g., the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of all of the offenses) indicated in the records and pleadings of this case, the Defendant’s appeal reasons for the final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.