The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The following facts are favorable to the Defendant.

The Defendant led to the confession of each of the facts charged in the instant case and divided his mistake.

The thief crime of this case was returned to the victim D, and the thief crime of this case was committed and there was no substantial damage.

The victim D expressed that the defendant does not want to be punished.

There is a family member who should support the defendant with mental apprehension and mental apprehension.

The equity should be taken into consideration in the case of judgment at the same time as a judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On the other hand, the following facts are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Defendant has been convicted several times of criminal punishment for the same crime, and, in particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime resulting from the same crime and under being tried for other fraudulent cases.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, and relationship with victims, even if all favorable circumstances for the defendant are considered, the sentencing guidelines (the scope of recommending punishment) No. 1 of the sentencing guidelines (the crime of larceny for not less than four months) [the scope of recommending punishment] of the mitigation area (4 months to ten months), of the mitigation area (special mitigation) of the mitigation area (the person who is a special mitigation (special mitigation)] of the mitigation area of general property / Non-existence of the punishment amount of the second crime of the same type (the attempted crime) of the specific crime (the aggravated crime) which does not correspond to the aggravation of the specific crime: the sentencing guidelines is not applicable.

As a result of the majority of crimes: The lower court’s punishment, which was determined by leaving the lower limit of at least four months (the lower limit of the sentencing range for crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set, is observed, since the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which no sentencing guidelines are set are set are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, is unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.