2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

The Defendant agreed with the victims.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime because he/she was not even two months since he/she was sentenced to both the punishment for the instant crime and was released from the prison (around October 23, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for the crime of larceny, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on October 23, 2015, and the instant crime also constitutes the period of repeated crime). The instant crime was committed by the Defendant following intrusion upon the just, theft by decomposition of vehicle parts, etc., and it is not good that such crime was committed.

As seen above, the defendant has been sentenced to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.