The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 in the appellate

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there are unfavorable circumstances, including not only the history of punishment for larceny, but also the fact that the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime even during the repeated period due to larceny, and the Defendant did not recover from damage. The lower court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor equivalent to the maximum applicable sentence, which was subject to discretionary mitigation, by taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim D, the fact that the mother of the pulmonary cancer should support the pulmonary cancer, etc., there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial. In full view of the records and arguments of the instant case including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the bounds of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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