2. Determination

A. Defendant A shows a strong intention not to commit the same crime again in the future, such as when both the facts of each of the instant crimes were discovered, and actively cooperating with investigation agencies, etc., and the Defendant agreed with the victims of larceny except J, and deposited KRW 1 million to the above J. However, each of the instant crimes is not less complicated in light of the type and frequency of the crime, degree of damage, etc., each of the instant crimes was punished several times including punishment for the Defendant, and there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant in terms of social harm and danger of recidivism, and other factors of sentencing indicated in the records, such as motive and circumstance leading up to each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s age, character, and environment after committing the instant crimes, etc., and there is no reason to believe that the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable. Therefore, the aforementioned Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Although there are favorable circumstances for Defendant B, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and divided his depth, each of the crimes of this case committed again without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime for the same crime, in light of the method and frequency of the crime, the degree of damage, etc., the nature of each of the crimes of this case is not weak. Nevertheless, there was no agreement with the victims of larceny up to the trial due to the Defendant’s failure to make a serious effort for the repayment of damage, and there were several records of punishment for the same crime, and each of the crimes of this case committed again without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime.