The judgment below

We reverse each part of the crimes of Nos. 2 through 6 of the crime sight table in the judgment.

The court below held the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (each of the crimes No. 1 in the list of crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month and the remaining crimes: nine months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Each of the crimes set forth in No. 1 of the list of crimes in the holding of the court below is recognized and against this part.

The defendant's stolen digital camera 1 was seized and returned to the victim E.

On April 9, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor or 2 years of suspended sentence on April 17, 2015, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 17, 2015. Since each of the crimes in this part is in the concurrent relationship with the crime of larceny, etc. for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and since each of the crimes is in the concurrent relationship with the latter after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, punishment should be determined in consideration of equity

On the other hand, the defendant intruded the church through a disguised use of the gap in which the victim's surveillance was neglected, and the crime is not good in light of the circumstances and methods of the crime.

On August 31, 2010, the Defendant had been punished three times as the same larceny even before the instant case, including being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two-year imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of intrusion on a structure, larceny, etc.

The sentence on the accused is inevitable.

In light of these circumstances, the lower court has determined a sentence by comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc. In so doing, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no other new data to change the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, the punishment sentenced to each crime No. 1 in the table of crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because the punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Each Defendant of the crimes Nos. 2 through 6 of the crime sight table in the holding.