The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a net manner and committed the instant crime in depth.

In addition, the degree of profit gained by the defendant from the crime of this case is relatively small (a.e., about 1.5 million won).

In addition, the fact that Y, a female living together of the defendant, wants to find the defendant's wife against the victim, etc. should be considered in favor of the defendant in the course of determining the punishment of the crime of this case.

However, the instant crime committed by the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price, committed the so-called “dacting” act, which was provided with alcohol and alcohol from the victim D at the alcohol house, and performed the said victim G and alcohol together through the human resources office, theft of the said victim’s cell phone and credit card, and purchase another alcoholic beverage by using the said credit card, and the illegality of such act is not weak.

In addition, on June 30, 2013, the defendant completed the sentence of 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor due to larceny, etc., but also committed the crime of this case under the same law without being aware of it during the repeated crime period.

B. It seems that the defendant did not take any particular measures to recover the victim's damage until now.

In addition, the defendant had approximately twenty-six criminal punishment records (including three times of imprisonment with prison labor and two times of suspended execution) and most of the contents of each crime are similar to the crime of this case, and the favorable circumstances mentioned above have already been fully reflected in the judgment of sentencing of the court below.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.