The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment is recognized that the Defendant’s disability of class 2 of intellectual disability and that the Defendant appears to have committed the crime due to economic difficulties, and that the damaged goods have been returned.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny in February 2015; (b) the Defendant was sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime; (c) three months after the completion of the execution of the above imprisonment with prison labor on August 2015; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime on October 2015; and (c) the Defendant again committed the instant crime only one month, despite being sentenced to a fine by the same type of crime on October 2015; (d) the method of the commission of the instant crime, such as removal of an electronic tag for the prevention of theft by using the pent and pent; and (e) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, including the Defendant’s age and family relationship, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not heavier even if considering the above favorable data.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition, since there is no ground for appeal by the defendant.