2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and is against the recognition of each of the instant crimes, and that the Defendant has no record of committing a crime exceeding the fine is favorable circumstances.

However, the fact that the defendant repeatedly committed the same kind of crime, such as intrusion into the center for older persons several times and theft of goods, the use of the amount of damage as gambling money, etc., which is not good in the circumstances after the crime, and the victims want to punish the defendant.

The court below determined punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from those of the court below in the first instance after the sentence of the court below.

In addition, comprehensively considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s sentencing that selected the lower limit of the statutory penalty is deemed appropriate, and the lower court’s sentencing that excessively exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion cannot be deemed unfair.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.