2. The following facts are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime; (c) the Defendant appears to have not caused economic damage to the victim due to the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant appears to have been involved in the instant crime by failing to meet C’s demand; and (c) the Defendant was absent from the scene of the instant crime and was not involved in the instant crime of larceny by Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant A.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime after having been sentenced to one year of imprisonment due to special larceny, etc., and committed the instant special larceny by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years. The lower court sentenced the lower court to four months near the lowest sentence that can be sentenced by law because the Defendant committed a crime during the period of repeated crime by reducing the amount of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, which is the lower limit of the above statutory penalty, and cannot be sentenced to a fine that is not prescribed by law, even if considering the favorable circumstances of the Defendant as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed unfair because the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal 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.