The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the traveler did not have any intention to commit the crime because he thought that the travel glocks between the taxi will bring about to the passenger terminal.

The punishment (one million won of fine) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant found the instant travel capital at the string of taxi operated by the defendant and did not take measures to find the owner, such as a report of learning, before contact with the police, and moved it to the defendant's residence. The defendant was aware that the owner of the said glish was the cruise passenger, and that he was aware that he was returning to the cruise at about 7:0 p.m., the above 30 p.m., the 30 p.m. and did not move the glin to the place of residence, and did not go to the above glish again at around 4:30 p.m., the 30 p.m., the above g., and the defendant was confirmed the contents of the glish after opening the glish at the place of residence. In light of the above facts of recognition, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial. The reason for sentencing as stated by the lower court is the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, records of the crime, motive or circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.