2. (1) Determinations can be taken into account: (a) the Defendant made a confession of all crimes; (b) the seized stolens return to the victims; (c) however, even though the Defendant had been punished for the same criminal records in the past, the responsibility for the same crime is heavy; (d) the Defendant did not fully recover from damage; and (e) other various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, are not determined to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(2) Meanwhile, the stolen property seized and the reason for return to the victim is clear should be returned to the victim as a judgment (Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the lower court erred by omitting a declaration of return to the stolen property seized in the case of 2015Kadan1933, but the lower court did not constitute the ground for reversal in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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.