2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

The number of the crimes in this case is not significant, and despite the fact that the defendant had been sentenced more than 10 times for the larceny crime, recidivism is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, there is a relatively little amount of damage caused by the crime, some of the crimes are attempted, the fact that a considerable number of thefts have been returned to the victims, some victims do not want the punishment, and the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned various circumstances and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, means and consequence, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed as being too uneasible and unreasonable.

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