The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court’s sentencing is unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the aforementioned sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning. The lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in determining the sentencing, in light of the following: (a) the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial, including the Defendant’s disabled person of Grade III with intellectual disability, have been sufficiently taken into account while rendering the sentence at the lower court; (b) the Defendant has been subject to criminal punishment for larceny and attempted larceny, including the one sentenced once before the instant case; (c) the Defendant had been sentenced to punishment for larceny and attempted larceny; and (d) committed the same offense only five months after the completion of the execution of the sentence after having been sentenced to punishment by larceny; and (d) the Defendant did not receive any written appearance from the victims; and (e) the judgment of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in its sentencing.