The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial, and the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the lower court’s sentencing is too too unreasonable even when comprehensively considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

In particular, the court below takes into account the fact that the defendant has been punished several times, such as the theft amount, the number of victims, the number of larcenys, and the fact that the defendant has been punished habitually, but the damage has not been recovered properly, and the defendant has been sentenced to a punishment for the same kind of crime, while determining the punishment against the defendant in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant's awareness that the defendant was committed at the time of and against the crime, and that his family's livelihood should be responsible. The circumstances favorable to the punishment that the defendant claimed in the court below had already been reflected in the determination of the punishment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.