2. In the past, even though the Defendant had been sentenced several times of punishment due to the same kind of crime, such as theft of cash in a clothing store, the Defendant committed the instant theft crime on December 2, 2013 due to the completion of the last sentence on December 2, 2013, and even thereafter, the Defendant committed the instant theft crime. The Defendant repeatedly committed the crime of repeatedly stealing cash in a way that repeatedly commits a gap in the surveillance of business caution due to the loss of clothes store during the new wall time zone.

However, the first instance court is relatively minor to take account of the motive or circumstance of the crime of this case, such as the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case, again he/she is expected not to repeat the crime of this case, and that it is difficult to maintain his/her livelihood because it led to the crime of this case, it appears that the person subject to emergency life protection could have been living in the public announcement center without a certain income and living expenses were caused by insufficient living expenses, and the degree of damage is relatively minor. Some of the damaged items were returned to the victim at the site, and the compensation was returned to the victim was completed, and the remaining amount was also recovered from all the damage caused by the crime of this case such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, occupation, environment, etc., the sentence of the defendant above the previous level of punishment was somewhat harsh, and the punishment of the defendant is sentenced to more severe punishment than the previous punishment area. Comprehensively taking account of various sentencing conditions shown in the first instance court proceedings of this case, the sentencing guidelines for the defendant is to reduce the amount of punishment against the defendant in question.