The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(F) The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (or three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

While the defendant led to the confession of the crime, he does not repeat the larceny crime again.

Part of the damage from the crime of this case was returned to the victim, and the court below expressed that the victim E does not want the punishment of the defendant.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed 14 times in total during a period of one year by theft of property or by intrusion on a structure for the purpose of theft, and the amount of damage exceeds seven million won in total.

In light of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to four times or more for the same type of crime, such as cutting off the corrected locking device or impairing an empty room, theft of bicycles, cash, etc., and committed the instant crime under the same veterinary law only for three months after the execution of the final sentence was completed, etc., there is a high possibility of criticism.

In particular, after the Defendant was indicted for committing the theft of this case, the circumstances after the Defendant committed the theft, such as intrusion upon a structure for the purpose of theft even on January 15, 2019, which was the first trial date of the lower court.

Most victims of the instant crime did not recover from damage.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the health team and the Defendant as an element of sentencing were already revealed and sufficiently considered in the hearing process of the lower court. There was no particular change in the situation in the matters subject to sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

The judgment of the court below is otherwise.