An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) under the unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, the Defendant committed the crime of habitual larceny in this case even though the Defendant had committed the crime of habitual larceny in the course of the police investigation regarding the crime of habitual larceny in this case, even though there was a history of damaging public goods during the police investigation conducted around August 2015, which had been punished by damaging public goods; (b) the total amount of damage to the crime of habitual larceny in this case was equivalent to approximately KRW 2.6 million, and a significant portion of damage was not yet recovered; (c) the victims of larceny wanted to be punished; and (d) some favorable damages were recovered; and (e) some damages were recovered from the victim’s actual damage; and (e) the Defendant did not recover the compensation for the crime of habitual larceny in this case; and (e) the amount of damage was not recovered within the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court, taking into account the following factors: (i) the Defendant’s actual damage was within the scope of the victim’s punishment; and (iii) the Defendant’s specific injury was within the scope of the sentencing of the victim’s injury.

The lower court’s sentencing seems to have been determined within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above circumstances.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as unfair reasons for sentencing have already been considered by the lower court in the course of determining the sentence as above, and there is no special change in circumstances that make it possible for the lower court to change the sentencing.

Therefore, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because it is too large.

. The defendant-appellant.