2. It does not seem that new circumstances or special changes are likely to be reflected in sentencing after the decision of the lower court was rendered.

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and that the amount of damage is not significant is favorable to the defendant. However, the crime of this case was stolen from the wedding place, and it seems that the crime of this case was not good in light of the applicable law and its patterns, and it appears that the defendant used the stolen money for amusement expenses, such as the bicycle racing, and the damage is still not recovered, and the crime of embezzlement of business (Seoul Southern District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 3951) was committed by larceny for three months after the execution of imprisonment was completed, and the defendant was punished by a fine (Seoul Southern District Court 2017 High Court 2017 High Court 12829) and again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions expressed in the instant case, including the Defendant’s previous conviction, age, sex, environment, etc., the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.