The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The fact that the decision-making defendant recognized his criminal act and reflects his criminal act, and that some of the victims have returned the damaged goods is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is not likely to be a crime because the defendant stealss the property of the victim with the ratio of the ratio, intrudes into the office of the door-to-door distribution, steals cash, and embezzled the cost of door-to-door distribution in the occupational storage.

The Defendant is highly likely to commit the instant crime without being involved in the period of suspension of execution due to the same crime.

The judgment below

There is no change in the sentencing conditions after the sentence.

In addition, taking into account the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

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