The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the reasons for appeal is that the original court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The court below determined a punishment against the defendant in light of favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the crime of Bosing is very poor in its nature; (b) the personal and social harm is serious; and (c) the defendant actively intruded the victims’ residence and withdrawn money from Bosing; and (d) the risk of the criminal act is higher than the general crime of Bosing; and (c) the degree of the defendant's participation in the entire crime cannot be said to be less easily; (d) the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is not significant; and (e) the victims are more likely to suffer damage from the crime of this case due to the old age where active economic activities are difficult; and (e) the victim's profits acquired by the crime of this case seems to be more severe.

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and in light of the balance of the sentencing with the same kind of crime, the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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