The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as 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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (b) In most cases, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial at the trial of the lower court were revealed in the proceedings of the lower court, and there is no particular change in circumstances related to the matters subject to sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

Although damage caused by each of the crimes of this case is not significant, the defendant completed an agreement with two of the four victims, and the amount of the non-paid damage is KRW 10,000,00 favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant had a majority of the records of the same crime, and came to commit the crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and the crime of this case is not for specific goods, but for money and valuables on the vehicle, so the amount of damage is the crime.