The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee is as follows.

1) Basic crime: Larceny of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

3. Crimes of larceny under the Punishment of Specific Crimes Act (the scope of recommendations) and there are no types 1 (the person subject to special sentencing) [the person subject to special sentencing] [the scope of punishment], basic sphere of punishment, one year and six months to three years], and concurrent crimes under subparagraphs 1 through 4: Offenses of Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the decision on the types of larceny) [the decision on the types of larceny];

3. The scope of recommendations based on the criteria for handling multiple crimes: One year and six months to one year, respectively. No. 1 of the Punishment of Specific Crimes Punishment Act No. 1 (the scope of recommendations) (the person who is subject to special sentencing)

B. The lower court: (a) took advantage of the fact that the Defendant repeatedly committed the crimes under the same law; (b) began to commit another crime in the absence of 5 months after the completion of the sentence; and (c) went into the dwelling place at night by damaging the attitude of the act; and (d) upon intrusion into the dwelling place at night, the quality of the crime is not good; (b) however, the Defendant appears to have taken an attitude to perceive and reflect his mistake, such as inducing the Defendant to commit the crime, and (c) made efforts in good faith for the repayment of damages by agreement with the victims; and (d) was sentenced to punishment against the Defendant.

When comprehensively taking into account the conditions for sentencing in the trial, the applicable sentences, and the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee as seen earlier, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or the judgment of the court below is assessed.

B. The changes in sentencing conditions are made in comparison with the original judgment because new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial of the original court.