The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee is as follows.

[Determination of Type] Class 2 (Habitual Habitual Larceny) (Special Sentencing) mitigated under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes: Persons who are mitigated: Mental and physical weakness (no one is responsible for the principal) (the scope of recommending punishment), Non-members of the Punishment [the scope of recommending punishment] Imprisonment from 9 months to 3 years (special mitigation area)

B. In full view of the facts that constitute the conditions for sentencing in the trial at the trial, the applicable sentences, and the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court as seen earlier, the lower court appears to have rendered a sentence by fully considering the favorable circumstances to the Defendant (the lower court’s sentence refers to the lowest limit of the scope of the recommended sentencing in the above sentencing guidelines), and the judgment of the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below or that it is unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because a child has not submitted new data on sentencing in the trial of the original instance.

In addition, considering all the circumstances on the records of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the history of punishment, and the sentencing as shown in the previous theories, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.