2. It is true that the instant case is a case where the Defendant stolen one handphone of the victim E in a soup, and that the Defendant did not repeat the instant crime again, such as the fact that the value of the instant stolen goods is relatively small, and that the victim temporarily returned the stolen goods to the victim, and that the actual damage of the victim appears to have been most restored.

However, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of theft of one handphone of other customers at a soup and the execution of the sentence was completed, and committed another crime of this case again during the repeated crime period of 11 months later, and did not make any effort to recover the damage of the victim until the trial was held, except for the probable circumstances where the victim’s handphone was discovered at the time of arrest as a result of the crime of this case and the victim was temporarily returned to the victim at the time of the crime of this case. In full view of all the sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

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.