Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, [2017 order 2489, 2017 order 2711], 2017 order / [2017 order 3042], 2017 order / [2017 order 3522 of order / [2017 order / [3522 of order /

1. The sentence (No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months and imprisonment for 10 months and imprisonment for 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below and the pleading was combined in the trial of the court below. The judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below in the first instance [2017 high group 2489], [2711 high group 2017 high group 2711], [2017 high group 3042], [2017 high group 352], and the judgment of the court of second instance in the judgment of the court below in the second instance in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance which separately sentenced each of the above crimes [2017 high group 2489], [2017 high group 27 high group 2711], / [2017 high group / [2017 high group / [23017 high group /2]

3. Determination on the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) (as for the judgment of the court of first instance, [2017 high order 514], [2017 high order 1598], [2017 high order 2017 high order 2533]), no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court of first instance, and where the sentencing of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant committed the instant Internet goods fraud and convenience store theft even if the period of punishment by a fine for larceny or

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal appear to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

When comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc. as shown in the deliberation by the court below and the party concerned, the sentence of the court below shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to have been too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the lower judgment of the first instance [2017 order 514], [2017 order order 1598], and