The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of committing the crime described in paragraph (2) of the decision of the court below, the defendant knew that the victim who was a simplified consignee was aware that she would drink alcohol.

The defendant had no intention to larceny.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (nine months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion that there was no intention to larceny, the court below acknowledged the following facts by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, at the time when the defendant brought the victim's bags, the bank was placed on the top of the convenience store, the victim's act was difficult to take a locking place in the toilet for the purpose of going to the toilet, the table was placed on the victim's day, the victim's day-to-day drinking and albb, and the victim's day-to-day was placed on the table, and the victim's day-to-day was a thing within the employee's management scope at least within the convenience store, but the defendant took it as it was without confirming it to the employees of the convenience store. In full view of the following circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant intentionally brought about the victim's day-to-day.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from that of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). We examine the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the foregoing.

There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial.