The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. There are no extenuating circumstances for the defendant to consider the reasons for appeal as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that mitigation of self-denunciation should be applied in the reasons for appeal.

However, even if the defendant's appearance in an investigative agency constitutes a voluntary reduction of punishment under Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Act, it is merely a reason for voluntary reduction of punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011). In addition, when the defendant was in a single trial, the court below submitted a written agreement on the case at the highest court 2018, which was 2635.

However, the Defendant had been punished several times for the same crime (10 times for the same crime from 2010 to 2016) and each of the crimes of this case was committed only over half years after the Defendant was released from prison.

In particular, both past three criminal records and past three criminal records are crimes committed by theft or attempted crimes (see, e.g., Article 74-94 of the evidence record). A large number of damaged goods have been returned. However, rather than directly returned by the defendant, the defendant did not return the damaged goods to the victim by contact with the victim by another person who acquired the damaged goods.

In addition, even if examining various sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings of this case, such as the defendant's health status, economic situation, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

As seen earlier, there is a change of circumstances that “an agreement with some of the victims” was reached in the trial, but even if considering this, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the maximum sentence under the statutory penalty exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It is difficult to evaluate.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion.