2. The lower court determined the sentence by taking into account the following circumstances as revealed in the lower judgment’s “reasons for sentencing”.

favorable sentencing factors: The Defendant appears to be against the beginning of the young age when committing each of the instant crimes, and the total amount of damage to each of the instant crimes was not significant: (a) each of the instant offenses was invaded by the Defendant at night by destroying the windows of another’s structure by citing cement, citing them, thereby blocking theft and causing theft and fraud; and (b) the Defendant committed fraud and use of the stolen credit card using the stolen material. In light of the circumstances and contents of the instant offense, etc., the nature of the offense is heavy; (c) the Defendant committed each of the instant offenses on November 22, 2017, after being sentenced to punishment by larceny, etc. on November 22, 2017; (d) the Defendant did not recover from damage; and (e) the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victims; and (e) the Defendant’s ordinary character and behavior status, the environment and family relationship, motive and circumstances of the instant offense, etc.; and (e) the sentencing factors as indicated in the instant judgment process, shall be determined comprehensively taking into account all the following factors.

On the other hand, the court below seems to have determined the appropriate punishment by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and the defendant still did not receive a letter from the victims, and taking into account the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence against the defendant is too excessive.