The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Some of the goods stolen by the Defendant by mistake of facts (Nos. 10-14, No. 15, No. 18-20, and No. 16-11 of the crime sight list of the court of first instance) are shop display products. In the case of shop display products, most of the goods are sold at prices of 60-70% compared to new products. Considering this, the total amount of damage of this case is KRW 117,936,00, not KRW 109,674,600, which is recognized by the court below.

The court below erred in the misconception of facts against the excessive amount of damage.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the misunderstanding of facts, the lower court’s determination that recognized the total amount of damages of this case as KRW 117,936,00 is justifiable, and there is no ground to view that the market value of the stolen goods is merely 60-70% compared to the new goods, in view of the following: (a) the statement of the victims, and (b) the fact that the stolen goods referred to in the grounds of appeal by the Defendant were pawned in pawned in pawned in pawned in pawned in pawn, and that the amount of the money borrowed by the Defendant does not seem to have any significant difference with the amount of the

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant asserts that punishment should be mitigated considering the circumstances that led to a large number of crimes. However, there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court, and the sentencing as stated by the lower court is based on a comprehensive consideration of various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, history of the crime, the background and method of the crime, the frequency and method of the crime, the total amount of damage, and the circumstances after the crime.