The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the grounds for appeal of this case, the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the instant crime and reflects the fact that part of the amount of damage was seized and returned to the victim is considered in favor of the Defendant.

However, considering various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, circumstances after committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, the lower court’s sentence which sentenced the least sentence within the range of the punishment with a minimum of three years of imprisonment with prison labor (one year and six months of imprisonment), which is the minimum of the statutory penalty, is too unreasonable, considering the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crimes even though he was sentenced to imprisonment on January 11, 2012, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime; (b) most stolen money was used as entertainment expenses; and (c) the victim did not reach an agreement with the victim up to the trial; and (d) did not have any other circumstances to deem that the Defendant took measures for recovery from damage.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.