The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (a year of imprisonment, a fluener’s confiscation among seized evidence No. 28) of the gist of the grounds for appeal is deemed to be too unfluent and unfair.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). In most cases, the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as an unfavorable factor in sentencing in the trial at the trial of the lower court were revealed in the hearing of the lower court, and there is no other unfavorable changes in circumstances relating to the matters subject to sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was made.

There are several kinds of records on the defendant, and in the case of the crime of larceny and attempted larceny, the crime is bad in light of the method and frequency of the crime, and the total amount of damage is about 8.46 million won, and there is no agreement with the victims, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant seems to have been aware of his mistake and reflect, and the defendant is a mentally handicapped person and is expected to receive medical treatment due to depression.