The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant’s punishment (one month and five months imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime; (b) reflects the mistake in depth; and (c) the health status of the mother and child is relatively small; and (d) the value of the stolen goods is relatively small.

2. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, has the unique area of the first instance court as to sentencing determination in the current Criminal Procedure Act, so it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing determination in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant, who had been punished several times for the same type of crime in the instant case, committed some of the instant crimes without having committed any damage recovery, even though he/she was in the period of repeated offense, and in addition, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the circumstances where new sentencing materials that can change the sentence were not added in the first instance court, the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable and unreasonable.

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.