A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

2. On November 29, 2018, when considering the fact that the Defendant had already been punished as a thief under similar veterinary laws, he/she committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Jeonju District Court on November 29, 2018 and committed the instant crime without being aware that he/she had been under suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and that most damages have not been recovered to the trial of the case,

However, on the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, the amount of individual damage is relatively large, and part of the damaged goods were recovered, the victim D, N, and U expressed the intention of not to punish the defendant at the investigation stage or the original trial, and the victim does not want the above victim's punishment by mutual consent with the victim J and the original trial. In the first instance trial, the defendant is able to receive mental and counseling treatment for treatment in the future, and the family members of the defendant want to be able to assist the defendant's treatment by making best effort, and the defendant's family members want to take full account of various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the background of the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the defendant's argument is justified, and therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is with merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is rendered again

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is the same as that of the judgment below, and thus, the summary of evidence is the same as that of the judgment below. Thus, Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.