The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment as to sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal principle, it appears that the lower court’s determination of the first instance judgment is reasonable to fully consider such special circumstances as the following: (a) the Defendant was led to the confession of all crimes of this case and the victim and the victim do not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (b) the Defendant’s growth in family environment is not determined otherwise.

In addition to the above circumstances, considering all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and trial process of the instant case, such as the fact that the Defendant was a criminal during the period of repeated crime, the fact that the Defendant was punished several times for property crimes, such as special larceny and fraud, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment was too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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.