The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 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). B.

The lower court, based on favorable circumstances, determined a sentence against the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the nature of the crime of this case is not good; (b) the degree of damage suffered by the victims is considerable; and (c) the victims have not been recovered until now; (d) the Defendant appears to have committed a crime; (b) the Defendant’s attitude to recognize and reflect all the crime; (c) the discovery of the cargo stolen by the Defendant only three months after the crime was committed; and (d) the Defendant has no record of punishment heavier than the suspension of the execution of imprisonment.

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and there is no other reason to view that the court below’s punishment was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following factors, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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