The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Under our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, where there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to sentencing determination, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to have an attitude to recognize and reflect each of the instant crimes, and the fact that the economic damage caused by each of the instant crimes is relatively less favorable to the Defendant.

However, each of the crimes of this case is not good in light of the circumstances, contents, and methods of the crime, and the defendant committed the same kind of crime even though he had been sentenced to suspended execution and punishment for the larceny crime.

The Defendant did not receive a letter from the victims and did not recover any damage.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of each of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and method of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing factors expressed in the process of the trial and records, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unfair due to it.

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