The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following: (a) the gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the defendant confessions and reflects the defendant; (b) economic form, details of the crime; and (c) the details of the crime do not purchase stolen mobile phones; and (d) the fact that the taxi articles purchased mobile phones; and (b) the defendant is scheduled to marry within the nearest time to live a new life, etc., the prosecutor’s sentence (former - 3 years of imprisonment, and 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment) of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal is recognized to have been sentenced in consideration of the above circumstances favorable to the defendant, and ① there is no change of circumstances that could determine the punishment differently from the court below in the first instance trial, ② considering the criminal records, age and occupation of the defendant including the contents of the crime in this case, degree of damage, profit acquired by the defendant, and other various factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments in this case, it is determined that the court below sentenced the defendant two years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor in consideration of various circumstances such as the size of stolen acquisition (1,000 mobile phones), the size of stolen property acquisition (1,000 mobile phones), the degree of the nature of the crime, and the seriousness of harm to our society.

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