2. Although there are no circumstances to consider the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s entire confessions of the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant is against confinement life, and the Defendant has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, the instant larceny crime is a theft of cash received from a restaurant operator in the absence of the victim while working as a restaurant employee. It is highly likely that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s failure to make any effort to recover the victim’s damage or to agree with the victim; (b) the Defendant has not been made to recover the victim’s damage up to 36 million won; and (c) the Defendant has not committed any other crime similar to the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant’s age, family environment, circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc.; and (c) the Defendant’s age, family environment, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., considered all the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments in the instant case.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.