All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

The purpose of the judgment of the court below is to determine the punishment as it is.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each of the judgment below's respective punishments (the first instance court: the fine of KRW 1 million, the second instance court: the suspended sentence of KRW 2: the imprisonment of KRW 8 months) is unfair because it is too unreasonable (the defendant asserted that he/she is guilty of larceny in the court of the first instance, but this is only an incidental law after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, and even if examined ex officio, there is no error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below). 2. The judgment of the court below acknowledged the fraud of the defendant, and the amount of damage to each crime is relatively short.

However, each of the crimes of this case is that the defendant obtained the charge by taking advantage of his cab without being on a taxi, and stolen the wallets in a taxi, and the nature of the crime is not less vulnerable.

The Defendant had already been punished due to the same type of cab-free car crime, and committed each of the crimes of this case even though he had been punished several times due to the theft crimes.

The Defendant did not agree with the victims of each of the instant crimes, and did not recover from the damage.

In addition, there is no change in circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in the trial compared with the original judgment.

In full view of all such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. as shown in the records and arguments of this case, each punishment of the original court is limited within the scope of reasonable discretion and it is not recognized as unfair because it is too unreasonable (in so determining, as long as each punishment of the original court is deemed appropriate, the lower court’s judgment is not reversed on the ground that it is not necessary to determine one punishment for fraud and larceny as stated in the judgment of the first instance court sentenced to a fine and the judgment of the second instance court sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment, and on the ground that there is no reason to appeal by the Defendant, and thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.