The judgment below

Among the compensation, the remainder shall be reversed except for the part of the application for compensation order filed by the applicant E and F.

1. The lower court rejected all applications for compensation order filed by the petitioner E and F (Seoul Eastern District Court early 115, early 2016, early 44, early 2017). According to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Thus, the above application for compensation order was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Each of the instant crimes, based on the reasoning of appeal, committed by the Defendant by intrusion upon the residence of 25th century between the Defendant and one month, theft of property worth approximately KRW 63 million, and, in the process of avoiding the police officer’s tendency, the Defendant did not take necessary measures even after destroying the victim’s van with a passenger car driven without a driver’s license, and the nature of each of the instant crimes is not weak.

The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment several times due to the theft crime, and even during the period of repeated crime, and there was a number of victims in the process of the crime, and the total amount of damage was considerable, and the Defendant, using the cutting machines prepared in advance, intruded into the residence of each victims, committed the larceny crime of this case, and planned and executed the thief closely, such as hiding the identity of each victims using the cutting machines in the process. Therefore, strict punishment against the Defendant is inevitable.

However, the Defendant recognized all of his criminal acts and reflected, and the Defendant continued to engage in job-seeking activities and living at work after the final release, etc. for at least one year and six months, which led to the Defendant’s failure to engage in self-support without re-offending. However, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime.