The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court exempted each of the punishments against each of the larcenys listed in paragraph (1) of the judgment below and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at No. 2 of the daily table of crime No. 2 of the judgment of the lower court as indicated in the judgment, and sentenced each of the punishments against the following facts: (a) the lower court convicted him of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at No. 2 of the daily table of crime No. 2 of the judgment of the lower court as

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, and thereby the above exemption portion which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal was separated and confirmed as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the defendant's conviction.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that it differs from the opinion of the appellate court, and to impose a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to have recognized his/her mistake, such as the confession of his/her female crime, first of all, by an investigative agency.

The Defendant appears to have committed each of the crimes in this case for living with a speech impaired person, and the amount of damage caused by the Defendant’s crime is relatively little.

However, the defendant has been sentenced to punishment for the larceny crime more than three times and has been punished.

In particular, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months with prison labor for larceny, and only 1 to 2 months have passed after the execution of the sentence was completed.