The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered a sentence against the Defendant, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the recognition of the instant thief and reflectability of the Defendant, given that the Defendant committed the instant thief at least 37 times at the time when the Defendant was sentenced to one year due to habitual larceny and was released from prison, and then did not go against, one year thereafter.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant as an element of sentencing are already revealed and sufficiently considered in the trial process of the court below, and there is no particular change of circumstances in the matters that are the conditions of sentencing after the sentence of the court below.

In addition, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances indicated by the grounds for sentencing, Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, means and consequence of the crime, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, etc.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.